Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 23
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW delete. The list contained only two names. Sandstein 05:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of White South Africans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
List serves no useful purpose. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, is that a Keep or a Löschen? Or is it just a Kommentar? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the statement I made when I nominated this list for deletion. Kevin (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger. I apologize for getting confused. I would really like to hear from the author as to what his point was with this article. I think I know, but I'd rather let him explain, if he cares to. Meanwhile, the Tom Lehrer song "Who's Next?" is running through my head. Its subject should be applied to this article. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the statement I made when I nominated this list for deletion. Kevin (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, is that a Keep or a Löschen? Or is it just a Kommentar? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete WP:LISTCRUFT, anyone? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRUFTCRUFT is a genuinely worthless argument. Please try to properly explain your delete vote so that it can carry at least some weight. SashaNein (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "cruft" is too technical. How does "junk" grab you? A 9-month old "article" with 2 names in it? It's not an article, it's a list of the letters from A to Z. That's already covered under "Alphabet". P.S. What's your view on the article, as opposed to your view on the user's comment? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete24.10.111.154 (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article was started 9 months ago and has 2 entries. Given the political leanings of the creator, it was probably intended to prove a point of some kind. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete List doesn't offer any limiting criteria beyond skin color... heck, what is to be done with mixed race individuals? More importantly, no claim to notability of the list's subject asserted. Townlake (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's a little incomplete. You just add several million names, do an article on List of Black South Africans, add several million more names, and source all of them. Or, better yet, Löschen. Eauhomme (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't forget Coloured and Asian, for completeness of the four-Apart-heid "Who's Who". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - A list that can never be complete. Further, binning people by ethnicity is a BLP violation. ALso, per nom. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - a blp debacle waiting to happen, serves no encycopedic purpose. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom and for a universe of excellent reasons to remove a non-encyclopaedic source of contention. docboat (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - lack of content. not notable --T-rex 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was kept — Werdna • talk 05:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gopi Krishna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No WP:RS to support notability. Advertisement noted on the talk page since 2007. Wikidās ॐ 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kundalini. Not notable. Wikidās ॐ 23:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be notable enough as author. Needs major cleanup and secondary sources. The article seems to fit WP:BIO for authors. Definitely a start class article.TheRingess (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect useful info to Kundalini. Seems minor notable, but needs third party sources to keep own page.Yobmod (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gopi Krishna was instrumental in bringing the kundalini phenomenon to light in the West, and I have several sources that I will try to add to the article as time allows. His case of kundalini is one of the most well-documented cases that exists. Gene Kieffer, an acquaintence of mine, was his personal biographer and friend, and the late Dr. Lee Sannella, also an acquaintence of mine and author of "The Kundalini Experience" also cites his case and his work. --Cminard (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepArticle needs clean up but has value Teardrop onthefire (talk) 12:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Possible merge of any useful info to the Kundalini article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily fits WP:BIO See Indian Religions: A Historical Reader of Spiritual Expression and Experience and Mystics, Masters, Saints, and Sages: Stories of Enlightenment (book has foreword by Dalai Lama[1]), among many other possible sources from google books.John Z (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. CitiCat ♫ 17:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuckin' Backstabber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:V and WP:OR. No presence of reliable sources (only a broken link leading to a blog), and fails music notability. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:OR. Notability is probably achievable with very little work given the relation to Eminem however. -Rushyo (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not established from one alleged connected with Eminem. Artene50 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per notability or Redirect/merge to Soul Intent page per WP:MUSIC#Songs--Finalnight (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Move sourced infor (if any) to Soul Intent. Otherwise a non-notable single.Yobmod (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sant Sri Asaramji Ashram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable organization with no reliabel sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. At first glance it seems like it could be notable. Needs clean-up and referencing. At least one mention in a newspaper would be good to see. Only month old, give it a chance to grow.Yobmod (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reliable sources from leading newspaper are there. Upto notability guidelines.--rohitom (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate all of the hard work you put into creating this article. My concern is that the article is not the subject of secondary sources. The references listed only mention the ashram in their articles, these are passing references and do not help to establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable alone. Possible merge to Asaram Bapu. None of the references cited for this article focus on the ashram as its subject. The ashram, in each reference, is only mentined in the article as part of a larger subject. No reference is devoted to the subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vedant Vidyapeetham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article lacks independent reliable sources. May be written by a fan of this organization. Artene50 (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounds like an advertisment. No proof of notability, and completely uncited for years. Yobmod (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Swami Kaleshwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliabel sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Non-notable and un-cited. A person's job does not confer inherent notability, even if the job is being a Saint. Which reliable sources have noted any of his actions? How does one become a Saint without being notable anyway?!Yobmod (talk) 11:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Per Yobmod. Saint to whom? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Swami Sivananda (Rajasthan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, and un-cited, and poorly wrtten. He is "known for his songs"? Does that mean he is a writer? Which songs? Not enough info for an article.Yobmod (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Vanity article with no notability and/or reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Shri Pawahari Balkrishn Yatiji. 209.243.55.22 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Ghits [2] seem to be about a different person. Bearian (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Paramyogeshwar Sri Devpuriji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliabel sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 4 years of no citations and no improvment. It seems the info for this article does not exist, hence it should go. No notability established.Yobmod (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete 4 years of non notability and no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by User:DGG as CSD A7. (Non-admin closure) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Drasko Klikovac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable artist Madcoverboy (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 No assertation of notability. I admit I'm partly responsible for this page; a user with an obvious COI (User:Klikovac) said that they had new sources for the article and wished to re-upload it (it got speedied before) with the new sources. I suggested in good faith that they do so, but as it turns out, there's still no shred of notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Article doesn't establish the notability of this person. Artene50 (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete - WP:CRYSTAL--JForget 23:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Come & Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete per WP:FUTURE. The article was created more than a year ago (May 2007) and the song hasn't even been released yet. The only two citations are around a year old and much before the album was released. Do U(knome)? yes...|or no · 22:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL if it's "indefinitely postponed" then the citations no longer are reliable predictors of its scheduled forthcoming. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Jclemens --T-rex 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't exist, so shouldn't have an article.Yobmod (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as failing WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- International Sri Deep Madhavananda Ashram Fellowship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable organization with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable and un-sourced. Laudable aims, but if no one has ever noticed their work, wikipedia shouldn't either.Yobmod (talk) 11:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable and unsourced. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete as failing WP:BIO, but could be recreated if stronger independent sources ever do show up. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gopala Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is notable . At least 4 books ( 2 / 3 in English (first in 1964)have already been published.Please note that State Institute of Languages,Kerala republished it in 1998).-Bharatveer (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Bharatveer (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete If he has 3 books in English, why is he "unknown to the outside world". The article basically states he is non-notable to 3rd party sources! Even reviews of his books from RS would be enough for me to change vote. But until then, should be deleted as non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Atleast three Books have been published on his teachings , one of them published by Kerala government itself. No where in the article, it is stated that he is "non-notable" to 3rd party sources.There exists atleast two charitable trusts, bearing the name of Sadhu Gopala Swamikkal in trivandrum , Kerala.But I can't find info about them online.Though there are a few websites , where his name gets mentioned .(please see http://www.schoolofsanthi.com/santhi_story_2007.php). - Bharatveer (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Although one text was published, this is not enough for notability. Also, reliable sources are lacking. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that publisher is a government institution (hence a RS)-Bharatveer (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC).Another book which was published received recommendations from a lot of respected religious institutions.-Bharatveer (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - I have now found a reference in google book , which I have added now. This book "Jewel in the lotus - Deeper Aspects of Hinduism - Mumtaz Ali P.78 (ISBN:8182600227) gives an elaborate description of this saint.- Bharatveer (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Bharatveer, I appreciate all of the hard work you put into creating this article. I know it took a lot of work. My problem is that there are NO reliable sources for this article. Also, I found no reference to this individual in the text you cited, Jewel in the Lotus. I looked at page 78 and also did a search for the name and nothing came up. Please explain why this "reference" was added. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If his notability is in his books then there needs to be some book reviews from reliable third party sources. This would add to the articles notability - at present there are no reliable sources to establish notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are not getting the point. The WP article never mentions that he has written any books.The only thing it says is that his teachings has been published by his devotess as early as in 1964.(his death was in 1960),
Regarding the google book, IIRC the page 78 is not available for review.I dont know how you found out there was no reference in that.Please see this link http://www.satsang-foundation.org/index.php?module=newsletter&option=previewNewsletter&ntid=5 This link has a brief description about him -
The Importance of a Guru
Sadhu Gopalaswami (1900-1960) of Poojapura, a locality of Thiruvananthapuram (formerly Trivandrum) was one of the sages whom M met in his younger days. The Sadhu was known popularly as the Poojapura Swamy, from the area of his residence. M's meeting with him as young boy of around thirteen has been described in 'The Jewel in the Lotus' (p78). M still recalls with gratitude how the swami had made him sit near him and stroked his head and shoulders with great love.
The Swami studied upto high school in an English school in Thiruvananthapuram but did not complete his matriculation. He lived as a householder along with other members of his family and did not marry. He had no gurus, as far as known. He was said to be the beloved of Aamaswami and Mayiamma who lived in the early years of twentieth century. M's reference to Mayiamma in his book 'Jewel in the Lotus' may also be recalled in this context. Sadhu Gopalaswami lived as an ordinary man. He would sit still, lost in thought on many occasions. Many educated persons used to approach him as disciples. When he sat in small gatherings people would be reminded of the image of Dakshinamurthy seated below a banayan tree. The swami did not write any book. But his conversations have been recorded by a disciple and have been compiled and brought out in a Malayalam book 'Arulmozhigal' (words of Grace). The book is relevant as a free vedantic exposition by a man of experience.
Some of his main thoughts which run like threads of gold in his conversations are as below:
Everything is Brahman, Sacchidananda Everything is steeped in Iswara Consciousness The nature of Iswara Consciousness can be described only by the terms of existing, shining, love (Astibhathipriyam) Asthi denotes existence- I am Bhathi denotes effulgence - the soul Priyam denotes eternally blissful - the Supreme When the veil of maya is removed the truth of the mahavakya 'Aham Brahmasmi' (Yajurveda -Brhdaranyaka Upanishad) rises in us. There is only one difference between Ishwara and the world : Iswara is the cause and the world is the effect. Iswara exists in us in a microcosmic state through attribute of Ignorance (Avidya) This microcosm is continually attracted towards the macrocosm of Iswara. When the veil of maya which limits us as 'my' 'mine' etc. is removed we understand that our nature is same as that of Iswara consciousness. The path to self realization through the removal of the veil of maya is by listening (sravana) to the advice (upadesa) of sage who has realized himself as Sachidananda Swarupa and by contemplating (manana) on it and by acting accordingly. ....- -Bharatveer (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is Jewel in the Lotus p.78. No mention. Searching for "Gopala" yields nothing. Even if it were a restricted page, it should give the page number. Perhaps you have a different edition or you mean a similarly named book?John Z (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very odd. This seems to be the same book sold at that satsang-foundation site, where they do say something about M meeting Gopala Swami being mentioned on p.78, but as above, this doesn't seem to be true; either some mistake, or a very different name is used for this person in the book.John Z (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. nn god-man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.253.157 (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the recent revelations about the reference I am going to have to say delete. Dance With The Devil (talk) 08:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mystery solved - wrong page numbers and different name: p.6 and p.7 seem to be the relevant ones. Gopala Swami is known as the Pujapura Swami in this book. Also, this book, Wisdom of the Rishis: The Three Upanishads - Page 8 by the same author, "M", Mumtaz Ali, mentions the Pujapura Swami (Gopala Swami) also, similar text. And an interview with Mumtaz Ali in The Hindu has a little bit more.John Z (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by Gwen Gale as G12, blatant copyright infringement. (Non-admin closure) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Polar Bear Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable or important. Punkmorten (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Copyvio from here. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Chetblong (talk) 23:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Children's Information on Clara Barton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Transwiki to Simple English at best Madcoverboy (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Blatant fork on non-redirectworthy title. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fork for no good reason. We don't do "children's" versions of articles on this Wikipedia (although it isn't a bad idea overall, if someone wants to gin something up at Wikia). --Dhartung | Talk 00:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unneeded poor quality fork --T-rex 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per above. At level best, transwiki to the Simple English Wikipedia, if it doesn't already have an article on Barton. (Which, in fact, it doesn't.) Ravenswing 07:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or transwiki to the Simple English Wikipedia - that's why it exists!Yobmod (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fork without prejudice to transwiki - don't edit the Simple English wiki, so I can't say what their standards are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - seems to be an overly simplified fork of the full article on Ms. Barton. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or transwiki – would be much more useful to have children's information on physics than a children's version of a topic that is non-technical. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There have been a lot of rumblings about the viability of these articles, and a lot of precedence to both keep and delete them. I have found (using the template for nokia linked below), several well referenced articles, and several poorly referenced/unreferenced articles. Many of the redlinks in the template are the result of prior deletions, but many of the redlinks have never even been attempted to be made into articles. A phone is notable as a product if it has independent reviews, is somehow (for its time) new or innovative, or otherwise notable for its uniqueness, availability, sales number, etc. This particular article doesn't seem to have any of the factors needed. I'm glad this isn't a blanket nomination any longer, as many of the articles are indeed worthy of inclusion based on the referencing/reviews alone. In my honest opinion, this AFD should not be used for precedence for future deletions - each should be taken case by case. (and this is only Nokia! I'm sure there are just as many articles/prior deletions for other product lines/companies.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nokia 6500 slide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a blanket nomination of all Nokia Phone articles. We have probably close to 100 articles and more potential ones as redlinks. We're not an advertising service or a Nokia product catalogue and shouldn't have an article on every single phone they've ever released. Only those phones who can demonstrate independently verified notability with reliable sources showing their importance should have individual articles, all others this article should be Deleted oder Merged into a list. Exxolon (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
*Should've mentioned you can navigate to all the articles in question via Template:Nokia phones Exxolon (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's customary to include links to every article you plan to delete this way and to place an AFD template on all of them. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some; Merge and redirect most to more comprehensive articles. I'd suggest not to one article on all Nokia phones, but an article for each series might work better; covering related phones in one article makes sense and gives a better idea of the whole when much of the information is common. Articles on series would allow better article flow and help reader understanding, I feel. Some individual models may have enough sourced information to make a separate article feasible, but I feel most of these don't. I also feel that a sensible attempt to work with the editors who create these articles would be better than AFD, which is conflict-prone. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Merge and redirect to an appropriate target, which would most likely be an article on this phone generation or series. Effectively all the information in this article is specifications which would be better handled as a description of common features across a range of phones and a short paragraph for each phone (or a table row) showing the differences. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for procedural reasons. Opposing deletion of unspecified articles. Suggest listing. Fg2 (talk) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Rescinding "Keep" now that it's just for this article. (Not expressing an opinion.) Fg2 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep only for incomplete nomination. Come on. SashaNein (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that this gadget satisfies WP:N. This is not a Nokia catalog. There is no basis for having an article for every product which was ever offered for sale. Edison (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the nomination for this particular article is complete and the subject doesn't meet notability criteria for a stand alone article. I may comment on the others when they are nominated. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article. Merge all others. Individual models are not notable. A single article on each generation of phone would be enough, with external links to the nokia sites. Wikipedia is indeed not a catalogue!Yobmod (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - I'll rescind the nomination for all articles and we'll run this one on this model only if everyone agrees. I'll then use that as a basis to decide on how to proceed regarding the others. Exxolon (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've amended my vote on this basis. I feel that the best approach would be to work with the articles in this category to find the best and most useful approach to documenting them, which would probably be articles covering a range of related phones and their common features. This would remove a lot of duplication between articles on very similar pieces of equipment. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll stick with delete. Same argument applies for individual articles as for all of them.Yobmod (talk) 07:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my original "delete" still stands thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - the article is crap, and doesn't seem to assert any kind of encyclopedic notability for the equipment. If those things exsit they should be added, otherwise some manner of merging the phones into just a few articles is likely a better solution. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect at this time. If, later, enough notable content is associated with this model to merit a separate article, then spin it off. (I doubt that there will ever be a case for a separate article, but we have no good reason to bolt the door.) —SlamDiego←T 01:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Chetblong (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sacrilege (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Explicitly fails future film notability. No prejudice towards recreation when shooting can be verified to have commenced. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation if production begins. If one looks at the article Neil Marshall, he has a lot of possible projects to pursue, including Drive, which Hugh Jackman recently joined. There's no guarantee that this one will come out ahead, if ever. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The notability guidelines for future films stipulates that a stand-alone article should not be created until a project enters production. This is because many factors such as budget issues, scripting issues, and casting issues can interfere with the project. Marshall has so many on the horizon that at least some of his proposed projects aren't going to happen. The film article can be recreated when and if principal photography begins. Steve T • C 07:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until such time as film really exists in a verifiable and notable form.Yobmod (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Soxred 93 03:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan Farrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Autobiography, all references to date are created by the author/subject. Fails WP:MUSIC by a long way (16 year old with no released work). If the music aspects were reduced to an appropriate level, there might be sufficient notability for an article as NZ Irish dance champion (given sufficient reliable sources) dramatic (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice, agree with the nom that the Irish dancing bits might be notable if sourced, even if the music clearly is not. Jclemens (talk) 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable and third party sources are provided. I would not accept a source from the organisation which runs Irish dance in New Zealand, since I have concerns that the dance competition itself is non notable.-gadfium 06:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. non-notable at the moment. Think Dance champion is also not sufficient. Wait until music is released, or something else is achieved.Yobmod (talk) 11:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit that the lack of recordings doesn't help. I would like it noted that there is some problems with recording, but this will be resolved within the next three months (hopefully). I know this doesn't change that fact that the music isn't there, but it is coming. Drkshadowmaster Contributions Talk Page 07:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep considering recent changes. Drkshadowmaster Contributions Talk Page 23:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkshadowmaster (talk • contribs) [reply]
- Ok, so 1) you're the page creator, nice to see you here, but it would have been polite for you to disclose that, and 2) there's still nothing in the page that shows me that it has merit to be kept. If you want it kept, add a link to newspaper articles or clearly independent non-user-edited websites documenting the dancing or music bits. Jclemens (talk)
- My appologies for not saying I am the author. On regards to non-user-edited websites, I have listed the TIDA website, which I have no input into the editation of Drkshadowmaster Contributions Talk Page 07:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reference [3] indicates that you are just one of a couple of dozen of age-group champions. If TID is considered as a competitive sport, this would be below the threshold of notability in any other sport. I agree that external media coverage would be required to demonstrate notability of the competition. dramatic (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely any National competition is notable, whether there is a media coverage or not. Drkshadowmaster Contributions Talk Page 07:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N – lack of independent third-party coverage. I've tried to find some sources, in Google News archives, and in a library database of newspaper articles, but have found none. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep but keep the list to the absolute minimum (or preferably incorporate it into the text) and expand the discussion of the use of unseen characters as a plot device and so on. Fram (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unseen character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nothing but a list of unseen characters with no specifics. Even fourth-level characters like Margaret's husband on Becker are listed; why not, say, Gazpacho's mother in the cartoon Chowder? None of the sources actually pertains to the concept, as common as it is, and I don't see any sources that actually go beyond a dicdef of the concept. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete oh please delete this. It's survived two prior AFDs under the grounds of "improve it", and it just appears that it is fundamentally impossible to improve this. Unsourced additions are deleted, added, and the horrid cycle continues, because nobody (including myself) is ultimately willing to take a stand and risk either 3RR or WP:OWN or any of those types of barriers. Yngvarr (c) 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, listing all possible unseen characters is silly. Articles on unseen characters can be tied together with a category. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I am the same person who nominated this previously (as User:VivioFateFan), I may have some bias... but whatever. Anyway, the problems that I suggested in my last are still present. In addition, if all of the other material is removed, all we have left would basically be a dictdef. NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral Two prior AfD's and the current state is all that's there? I'd be OK with stubbing it and letting editors expand into the literary/narrative device, rather than putting another crufty list in place. Jclemens (talk) 23:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to neutral. It's getting there, but could still use more work. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Delete the list and leave TWO examples. Right now the article should be called List of unseen characters and should be deleted. They are still chances to improve it. If nothing changes soon, then delete it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth List of unseen characters has previously been deleted. Yngvarr (c) 11:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per clear consensus to keep in TWO previous AfDs, What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Fairly considerable reader interest as well. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Maybe so, but as it exists, it is basically a dictionary definition, and is filled with tons of Original research. Also consensus can change NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 02:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which seem surmountable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would challenge that statement, based on the fact that it's been submitted to three AFDs so far. If it's improvable, why has it not been improved thus far? The concept is valid, the execution is not. Yngvarr (c) 09:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept is what matters and if the topic has been covered in dissertations and published books, then we use them to improve them. Plenty of articles had been stubs for months or even years before being substantially improved. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would challenge that statement, based on the fact that it's been submitted to three AFDs so far. If it's improvable, why has it not been improved thus far? The concept is valid, the execution is not. Yngvarr (c) 09:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which seem surmountable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's improvable, although at the rate these AfDs are coming it will probably be deleted and recreated a few times before the nice article it could be is realized. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify Throw away the list as listcruft, but(edit: was stubbified/trimmed, change to Keep) I guess the concept in itself is notable for inclusion (see the incoming links and interwikis). – sgeureka t•c 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Löschen - once the list is removed there is nothing left but a definition --T-rex 05:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then keep the list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is the last thing I would want to see kept --T-rex 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that's hyperbole as trust me there have been some really, really despicable articles that we deleted. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is the last thing I would want to see kept --T-rex 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then keep the list. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen. List is non-notable (find any source for these?) and impossible to maintain. Deceptive title, as is a list - should not even be transwikied to wiktionary, as is not a term in common use.Yobmod (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See the article's reference section. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead doesn't contain any refs. Only the characters themselves are referenced, and some of those references are dubious. The Colombo reference contains nothing about his unseen wife, and the Star Trek: Enterprise is based on fan speculation. I deleted a significant portion of the unreferenced material earlier. Yngvarr (c) 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add references momentarily as I just did a search and there are actually plenty out there. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead doesn't contain any refs. Only the characters themselves are referenced, and some of those references are dubious. The Colombo reference contains nothing about his unseen wife, and the Star Trek: Enterprise is based on fan speculation. I deleted a significant portion of the unreferenced material earlier. Yngvarr (c) 18:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See the article's reference section. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mediocre dictdef, then Yet Another Indiscriminate List of [adjective] [noun]. If someone could suggest something to go in this article besides a dictdef (besides a dreadful list) I could be moved, however. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has not only been trimmed down to a manageable level since the last AfD debate, but context and sourcing have been added. There is nothing wrong with having a list of examples within an article about a subject, nor do we have a "throw away the list" policy on Wikipedia. As the article notes, the unseen character is a common feature in fiction, particularly television shows and book series, and there is a purpose for the plot device of having a character whom the viewer must picture in his or her imagination. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not that anyone disputes that unseen characters are common; it's just that there doesn't seem to be anything to say about them other than that they're characters who aren't present in the narrative for whatever reason. This article suffers from a bit of Orange cat syndrome: there are many cats which are orange and some of them are noteworthy, but is there anything you can say in orange cat that doesn't boil down to "Orange cats are cats which are orange, many cats are orange"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can appreciate what you're saying. I think what distinguishes this from the orange cat is the "for whatever reason" question. Why did the producers of Frasier not simply cast an actress to portray Maris? Why do we not hear the person on the other line when Bob Newhart is talking on the phone? The unseen character allows the viewer to use his or her imagination, and, pardoxically, is someone that we "look for" but hope never to find. I guess my point is that one can say more about an unseen character besides the observation that it is (a) a character and (b) unseen. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any source you could point to that unifies the reasoning, though? There's no evidence of a trend, just a shared trait. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can appreciate what you're saying. I think what distinguishes this from the orange cat is the "for whatever reason" question. Why did the producers of Frasier not simply cast an actress to portray Maris? Why do we not hear the person on the other line when Bob Newhart is talking on the phone? The unseen character allows the viewer to use his or her imagination, and, pardoxically, is someone that we "look for" but hope never to find. I guess my point is that one can say more about an unseen character besides the observation that it is (a) a character and (b) unseen. Mandsford (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is not that anyone disputes that unseen characters are common; it's just that there doesn't seem to be anything to say about them other than that they're characters who aren't present in the narrative for whatever reason. This article suffers from a bit of Orange cat syndrome: there are many cats which are orange and some of them are noteworthy, but is there anything you can say in orange cat that doesn't boil down to "Orange cats are cats which are orange, many cats are orange"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen: Unsourced dictdef with a list tacked on. DCEdwards1966 18:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has a referenced section and thus is not unsourced. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the dictdef is unsourced. DCEdwards1966 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no inclination or intention of fixing it. If you think it is worthy of fixing it then you fix it. Sincerely and best DCEdwards1966 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been, but think it would be nice if instead of just commenting here others might help. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no inclination or intention of fixing it. If you think it is worthy of fixing it then you fix it. Sincerely and best DCEdwards1966 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the dictdef is unsourced. DCEdwards1966 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has a referenced section and thus is not unsourced. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or at least merge: Wikipedia has a number of lists of things and I see no reason why a list of unseen characters is not acceptable. However, if the list should be deleted, I don't think the definition of an unseen character should be deleted as well. If the definition of the unseen character is too short for a whole article, then at the very least I think the definition should be merged to another article, like fictional character. Q0 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I found a number of sources on Google books, Google news, Amazon.com, and Academic Search Complete, and have begun adding them, please note nominated versus current version: [4]. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but what are you going to say about this that you can't say about an orange cat? The article is still "Unseen characters are characters which are unseen. Here's a list." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of "unseen characters" has been the titular subject of dissertations and university published books; I would think these sources now that they have been presented can be used to supply the context of any list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You evaded my question there. What do you expect to put into this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am honestly not sure what you are asking. I did add some references to the article and expanded the lead some. I guess additional information from about the history of unseen characters and scholarly reception of them can be further added. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You evaded my question there. What do you expect to put into this article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of "unseen characters" has been the titular subject of dissertations and university published books; I would think these sources now that they have been presented can be used to supply the context of any list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but what are you going to say about this that you can't say about an orange cat? The article is still "Unseen characters are characters which are unseen. Here's a list." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has really seen some improvement, showing that this can indeed be more than a dicdef. Nice work, peeps. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So it has. Unfortunately, the RS'ing has given us a smaller list of unseen characters primarily from mainstream American Television. I'm not sure that's as much of an improvement in scope, even if the referencing has been improved substantially. Jclemens (talk) 22:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep how many times is this going to be nominated? Give it a rest. The unseen character is a notable theater concept, that any performing arts text book or class would cover, therefore it merits inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is also sourced.Myheartinchile (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It would make just as much sense to try to delete an article on automobiles because it mentions only a sampling of the possible models. If more or better examples are wanted, go add them. Deletion is not a way to avoid editing. DGG (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More examples are what was removed. This was a cross between an article and a list, and not doing a very good job of being either. You do make an excellent point that the unseen character in theater could use more coverage in the article than it currently is receiving. Jclemens (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A common literary device that has been the subject of academic study, such as the first reference in the article and this paper. And let's not forget the archetypal unseen character. The examples should of course be restricted to those that can be referenced, and if the list gets too long it can be split out per WP:SUMMARY. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The concept is, as above commetnators have pointed out, eminently encyclo-worthy. The list perhaps should be pared down, and more literary examples set out. Keep. -- HenriLobineau (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list should perhaps be changed to prose, but the concept itself is notable. However, this shouldn't turn back into "every unseen character ever"; comprehensive lists like this belong on the TV Tropes Wiki [5], not Wikipedia. I think a link to the relevant article at TV Tropes Wiki might funnel some of that listing to site that actually encourages that sort of thing. --Phirazo 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For me is important that there is a clear consensus that the article should not contain a huge list of unseen characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article, but shorten the lists, even if that results in only a stub. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite the list section still needing work, the article is decent. I will suggest, that the list portion of this article could be drastically improved by not only mentioning the character, but also explaining with a source statement, which the character is important. The lead section of this article itself states that: They are continuing characters — characters who are currently in frequent interaction with the other characters and who influence current story events — who are never directly observed by the audience but are only described by other characters. By providing arguments which support this statement, the article will be much stronger. Flibirigit (talk) 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't think we should be deciding here whether the list characters should be short or long. The criterion for inclusion should be that reliable independent sources have significant coverage of the character. We can't know in advance how long a list that will result in. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unencyclopedic WP:IINFO. MiB makes a very relevant point above with respect to references and sources, and the admin closing this debate should give weight to his views which I think make a very sensible and compelling reference to core policies; most of the keep votes are variants of ILIKEIT. Eusebeus (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar: While many of the sensible and compelling keep arguments regarding this encyclopedic article focus on policy based reasons, a number of the delete votes seem to be variations of "I don't like it." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT! - MORBO 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "I don't like it" is not a good reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the essays you link? "This is a dictdef and indiscriminate info" is a long way from "I don't like this." It's dishonest to imply otherwise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As has already been pointed out in the discussion, it is more than dictionary definition and is discriminate information. Saying otherwise does not make it so. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see it as other than an ordinary definition. There are few refs, but they don't really reinforce what is already stated, which can ultimately be boiled down to a single phrase: an unseen character is an unseen character. Pointing out usage of an unseen character, ala Voltaire et al, does not really expand on the concept, which still remains a character which is unseen. Yngvarr (c) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more than just a definition in that the concept has been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources. They show that it is not merely a character which is unseen, but one that is notable, because it appears in Voltaire from the eighteenth century and today in modern television programs, i.e. it is a notable dramatic concept with a long history. These sources can and should be used to continue developing this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's time for NOT ADDRESSING THE ARGUMENT COMICS!
- T-rex: You say it's a dictdef.
- T-rex: But see? It's notable! *stomps on a cabin*
- Dromiceiomimus: But...nobody said it wasn't notable. It's a reflexive dictionary definition. Utahraptor 18:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a heads up: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary article, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary articles are short, and that short article and dictionary article are therefore equivalent." Ford MF (talk) 18:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more than just a definition in that the concept has been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources. They show that it is not merely a character which is unseen, but one that is notable, because it appears in Voltaire from the eighteenth century and today in modern television programs, i.e. it is a notable dramatic concept with a long history. These sources can and should be used to continue developing this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't see it as other than an ordinary definition. There are few refs, but they don't really reinforce what is already stated, which can ultimately be boiled down to a single phrase: an unseen character is an unseen character. Pointing out usage of an unseen character, ala Voltaire et al, does not really expand on the concept, which still remains a character which is unseen. Yngvarr (c) 22:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As has already been pointed out in the discussion, it is more than dictionary definition and is discriminate information. Saying otherwise does not make it so. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the essays you link? "This is a dictdef and indiscriminate info" is a long way from "I don't like this." It's dishonest to imply otherwise. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, "I don't like it" is not a good reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 22:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IDONTLIKEIT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT! - MORBO 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. After reading this debate, I was prepared for an article in much rougher shape than what's actually there. It's an adequately sourced, encyclopedic entry on a clearly notable element of dramaturgy. If "needs cleanup" wasn't a valid excuse for deletion twice before, it isn't one now. Just because said cleanup isn't happening on a timetable the nominator would like, doesn't mean it's not a reiteration of the same invalid argument. Ford MF (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of reliable sources covering the topic, the article is more than a dictdef, and it has been improved since each nomination. DHowell (talk) 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete as neologism, insufficient WP:RS, no assertion of notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Battlebay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod, removed by author. Article is about a neologism and seems like a bit of an advertisement for the two sites listed. . No related news hits, no cited sources. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable noelogism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs) 12:03, June 24, 2008
- Delete as non-notable, unreferenced neologism. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G.D.O. (Stargate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fancruft, non-notable. Madcoverboy (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a game guide. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikia:Stargate:Garage Door Opener --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no out of universe notability --T-rex 05:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Tau'ri technology in Stargate#Garage Door Opener (GDO) (where GDO (Stargate) already redirects). Totally nonnotable. – sgeureka t•c 06:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree. Mere fancruft with no encyclopedic potential. Eusebeus (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. written in-universe. Not-notable by itself.Yobmod (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Deleteas a copyvio taken from Stargate Omnipedia which according to their FAQ does not allow for the text of an article to be republished in its entirety. I've tagged it with a speedy tag. -- Whpq (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note. I've declined the G12 speedy and fixed the major copyvio issue. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, I would say REDIRECT to Tau'ri technology in Stargate#Garage Door Opener (GDO). -- Whpq (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Grey Wanderer | Talk 18:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge and redirect without deletion as suggested above there is a clear redirect location. The article is quite new, so I might suggest Wikipedia:Give an article a chance and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. In any event, notable and verifiable enough to be kept in some manner. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being new is not a reason to keep --T-rex 16:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no merge. For God's sake, it's a random gadget from a TV show, without even the slightest hint of real-notability, impact, or even attention. --Calton | Talk 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ukanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is not encyclopaedic content. I suspect that it is either a hoax or non-notable, but if it belongs anywhere (which I doubt), then it should be at Wiktionary. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang, and no evidence is provided that this neologism is in general use, or any use - see WP:NEO#Reliable sources for neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Patent nonsense, not even worthy of being called a neologism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. To the best of my ability to deduce, smells like hoax. - Vianello (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWhat is one person's hoax, is anothers day to day word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.75.38 (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This should not be deleted in regards to: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang, and no evidence is provided that this neologism is in general use, or any use, as there are plenty of slang words listed in Wikipedia, such as Spic. Look that up and then flag it for deletion, if you can make that happen then you must be a magical person, like a wizard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbyte9001 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I moved this comment down here because it appeared to be interfering with the normal listing on the AfD page. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a WP:DICT Artene50 (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect as a plausible typo for Ukrainian 70.51.10.4 (talk) 07:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable. Also note that the author's only reason for keeping appears to boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is not a valid reason for keeping or deleting material. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like a joke. I'm from the UK, and live elsewhere - nobody says this. Even if they did, wikipedia is not a slang dictionary.Yobmod (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable neologism. And I could not find any evidence of the word's coiner, the noted crossword puzzle champion Don Witrow. DCEdwards1966 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break
[edit]KeepThis should not be deleted in regards to: Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang, and no evidence is provided that this neologism is in general use, or any use, as there are plenty of slang words listed in Wikipedia, such as Spic. Look that up and then flag it for deletion, if you can make that happen then you must be a magical person, like a wizard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.75.38 (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]KeepAs a UKanian, I am often called this on my trips to America. It is not offensive, nor rude. I actually find it quite charming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.75.38 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]KeepNon encyclopeadic content? Havent we as a society updated both our encyclopedias and dictionaries to include new words, including ebonics words? This is how a society grows and expands, as well as communicates across borders and cultures!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.75.38 (talk) 14:32 24 June 2008KeepAgain deletion upon the basis that Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary doesn't hold water. Vato, beaner, and wetback are listed in Wikipedia. Also do a search in Google and you can clearly see the term Ukanian pops up frequently. How does a term like beaner make it into Wikipedia, but you put up a firewall against Ukanian?? This makes no sense, I'm not from the UK, but work with plenty of Ukanians and I will have them voice their opinions on this proposed deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.75.38 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]KeepThis is a name used by many people I know. It is not meant as offensive, nor rude. It is generally used along the same lines as calling someone America, Australian, German etc etc....
How do we come up with new names, and or words if it is not for individuals that are creative??
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ukanian"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.75.38 (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Note to closing admin' 24.234.75.38 (talk · contribs) has made repeated !votes of keep in such a way as to confuse SineBot into only signing some of the comments. Additionally, has posted false signatures for other IPs that have not contributed to the discussion in order to mask its own repeated !votes. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel this word is valid and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaydeecruz (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 June 2008— Zaydeecruz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
KeepWe have not posted sig to some or false signatures. Those accusations are inaccurate. Our office has more than 10 people in it, and we checked with our Techie team. They stated that when we use the internet, our IP is logged as one in the same. There is no malice or misintent going on. We all use this term for our UK partners, and wanted to keep this definition going. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaydeecruz (talk • contribs) 23:51, 24 June 2008KeepWe have offices in the United Kingdom and have dealt with a number of people that have used the term Ukanian for either themselves or others from that region. These people do not find it offensive to be called or call others from the UK as Ukanians. I believe that keeping this entry would be in the best interest of global education, displaying the most current changes to our society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.75.38 (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Response to all above I understand that you may have heard the word or used it before. I think this is entirely possible. The problem with that is the article violates two of the most important criteria for inclusion, Verifiability and No Original Research. If you can provide attestation evidence of the word in such a way that it satisfies the neologism guideline, then I'm sure we'll all reconsider our delete !votes. Until that time, this article should be deleted. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I have noticed similarities in the votes, comments and editing patterns of three users involved in this discussion, and have filed a sockpuppetry complaint against them. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most of the modern words we use today - started out as slang. If a number of people above have heard or used it - I don't think Wikipedia should delete the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.155.210 (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC) — 70.173.155.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite if proper sources can be found We may be able to meet WP:NEO here. I've found some sources, but these do not support the picture painted by the above IPs/users. For example, the essay "Multi-Culturalism and Northern Ireland: Making Differences Fruitful" by Edna Longley, in Multi-culturalism: The View from the Two Irelands (Edna Longley, Declan Kiberd, ISBN 1859183115), contains specifically mentions "Ukanian" and says "Ukania" is "Tom Nairn's derisive term for the United Kingdom". Checking Google Scholar... there are sources there. I'm not sure if they can pass WP:NEO, but I think there's something here. Could someone else assist? --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Campus Crusade for Zeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No notability, advertising, neologism? Madcoverboy (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources, likely HOAX. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per JohnCD DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete One lone solitary singleton of a google hit (and it wasn't wikipedia) way out here on this archived blog page Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and non-verifiable. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this were really notable, it would have web hits that included reliable sources. I found a big zero web hits. [6] Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. GRBerry
- Strike with lightning and banish to the nether regions. Basically WP:NFT, if it isn't just a bad joke. --Dhartung | Talk 00:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lame joke --T-rex 05:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Delete: non-notable org, no citations, college joke.Yobmod (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, meets WP:BAND. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lab Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Speedied once, I bring the notability of this "sound project" up for discussion for closure. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Assuming the music really was published (and the whole article isn't a lie), it seems notable enough. Only existed 1 day, give the creator chance to improve.Yobmod (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you mean by "published", but in any case, it doesn't establish notability per wp:music. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I use published in the dictionary sense; "issued for sale and distribution" from wiktionary. If they had 4 albums released by a real music label, then they seem notable to me. Edit: their albums are available at amazon, and both soundtracks are for notable films with wikipages (needed wikifiying).Yobmod (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Released by a real music label" and being "available at amazon" does not satisfy the wp:music notability standard. Being part of the soundtrack of two unnotable films is unsourced and doesn't satisfy the notability criteria either. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-
- So what does this mean? Is the article that I am submitting being wikilawyered by Brewcrewer? Becuase I feel that it is. I admit I am new and trying to create some entries that I feel are valid, but if the battle is this painful, I'll stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolphSteiner (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)--RudolphSteiner (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks folks for the discussion.
I am new to Wikiapedia so footnoting (the code) is hard for me to understand. I need help with that
Here are the citations to document the article.
1) Movie soundtracks for Rose films are found here... a) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1945908/ b) http://www.mattschultz.com c) http://www.labreport.com
2) Inventor of the ATG is documented here a) http://www.mattschultz.com b) Concrete, Bulletproof, Invisible and Fried: My Life As a Revolting Cock Available December 2007 (UK), February 2008 (US) from SAF Publishing 256 pages in paperback ISBN-10: 0946719950 or ISBN-13: 978-0946719952 c) Industrail Revolusion - Book ISBN will be added later today.
3) album documentation can be found at... a) http://www.invisiblerecords.com/ b) http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=lab+report&x=18&y=12 c) http://www.mattschultz.com d) http://www.labreport.com e) Itunes f) snocap —Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolphSteiner (talk • contribs) 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-edited it an put in footnotes. Does it pass now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RudolphSteiner (talk • contribs) 22:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I remember this band from like 15 years ago, a friend of mine had the compilation album "Industrial Revolution". Yes, they are a notable part of the "industrial music" scene of the early 1990s. I don't understand how a band that released eight albums not counting the soundtracks or compilations could be considered other than notable. Please see WP:Recentism. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Strong" Comment. I don't see the relevance of the non-guideline and non-policy essay of WP:Recentism. But once links are being provided, I would like to provide WP:MUSIC, where one can see that releasing a prodigal amount of albums doesn't establish notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found many music projects that have not released 8 albums and yet have wiki pages. Furthermore, the eight albums are not all that is noteworthy. Being mentioned in the Industrial Revolution book (historical analysis of modern industrial and avant guard music) stands to point our their notoriety. The feature films add to their notoriety as well. It seems odd that Brewcrewer considers the films not noteworthy when one of America's leading film critic does. Where are the standards for what makes a notable film? Would Brewcrewer consider Stan Brakage films not notable because they weren't released in theaters? Even though these have.
Quite frankly I am shocked at the amount of bands that obviously have no notoriety and should not be allowed a page under the Brewcrewer tight restrictions. They have not released as many albums and were not mentioned in any sourced material. Yet, they still have pages. There are many noteworthy bands who should actually fail the noteworthy standard. One might check Psychic TV for example. This group never made the top 100 rock charts and yet they are allowed to have a page. Their history is important to the Industrial music genre, but by Brewcrewer definitions should not have a wiki page.
What seems to me to be apparent here is the inconsistency in assessing noteworthiness. But what is worse of all is that I get blind requests from people to explain this or that about an industrial band (because of my book project) and I really wish they could just wiki the names. --RudolphSteiner (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Recentism, because if this band came out last year we would not be having this discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:Music #5 which states: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." Amazon has their albums released by Invisible Records, a label with a 20+ year history that still exists today and has a roster with plenty of blue linked performers. Vickser (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article should also make the point that Cleopatra Records chose to include Lab Report on a compilation album of songs it felt were definitive of the industrial genre. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I didn't know there was an Industrial Revolution book. If it mentions the band, then that's a published secondary source, and notability has been established. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I just posted those under the compilation section and found several more releases. Also there was a Industrial Rev book check the isbn #. Hard to find in print. Yet another reason I wanted add to wikiapedia.--RudolphSteiner (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Industrial Revolution Book was a companion to the 4-cd compilation of the major forces in the industrial and noise scenes, compiled by Cleopatra Records. bowensanders (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:Music #6 which states Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply. -- since Matthew Schultz was also a part of the ensemble of Pigface -- bowensanders (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for new administrative reviewer and/or wiki moderator for this topic. Suggestions include wiki-mods with a reasonable background in counter-culture and the music thereof over the last three to four decades. -- bowensanders (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete - no context. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sven Oman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unsourced article, appears to be a fansite. Could not find relevant links with initial search on google [7] — Relyimah (t-c-e) 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7. I have changed the db tag to db-person. It's not nonsense, just a non-notable person. JohnCD (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Probably should have gone to RfD, but a pretty uncontroversial deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crackerquiddick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Meaningless redirect. Clubjuggle T/C 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The redirect isn't entirely meaningless, as the term has been used by a few bloggers to refer to an incident in the campaign. However, the article this redirects to doesn't use the term to discuss the incident, so the redirect isn't helpful to readers. There are just 101 ghits and 0 gnews hits; looks like the term has run its course and won't be staying long. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be a neologism, possibly coined by (and used most notably by) Hot Air blog in reference to a criticism of Barack Obama by Ed Rendell. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable noeologism. Even if used now, who is going to search for this in the future?Yobmod (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dark Matter Transfer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable band, no assertion of importance Madcoverboy (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete As non-notable band with no assertion of notability. And if that isn't enough, a quick search of Google News shows absolutely nothing- I can't find any reason why they would pass WP:MUSIC. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable band formed by kids, with no sources and no releases.Yobmod (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, although the event itself had borderline notability, this does fall somewhat short of WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Edith Macefield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not signing a contract is not a cause for notability, recentism & media circus Madcoverboy (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A stretch to apply WP:RECENT to an article about a recent death. Person achieved fame in 2006-7. Sources attest to notability. -- Kendrick7talk 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Ballard, Seattle, Washington. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge per nom. She enjoyed her fifteen minutes, and that's not enough to get an article. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E, as part of WP:Biographies of living people, doesn't apply to dead people; as she does now have an article, I don't see the point in deleting per WP:NOT#PAPER. -- Kendrick7talk 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Lots of people refuse to sell there homes. she got some minor coverage at the time, but no long term notability. Who is going to search for this name? The only place they would see it is in the sources, which give more info than here. Yobmod (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not everyone who dies gets a piece about it on National Public Radio. How is that not long term notability? If this had merely been a matter of a person who was a flash in the pan in 2006, her death wouldn't have received nationwide coverage. Your second point is incorrect: this person wasn't only mentioned in reliable sources, but her story was all over the blogosphere as well; a google search gives 112,000 hits.[8] If there's a desire to generate consensus for a merge, this should go thru proper means via a merge tag, etc. -- Kendrick7talk
- Keep - a "folk hero" according to NPR (see link in article). A perfectly valid, well-sourced stub. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Swami Sri Lilashahji Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. seems notable to me, as founder of the religion. Other members not though. More sources from print newspapers would be nice.Yobmod (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The material in this article could be merged into Asaram Bapu. For the article to stand alone, it must have reliable sources that establish the subject as notable by himself. He might have a notable disciple, but for himself, there are no reliable sources for a stand alone article. Also, to be specific, he did not found a major religoius tradition, though he does have a disciple who carries on his work in Asaram Bapu. This is an idea on how to salvage the information in this article. By himself, there are no reliable sources to confer notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ja, Merge as above would work for me too.Yobmod (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of all the contents stated on this article 80% are not sourced and the rest 20% is not verifiable (the sources does not say anything about what was "sourced"). Also apparent original research is in the article with somebody's description of it but nowhere to be found where it was published. With violation of 2 of the main Wikipedia's core policies, I submit this article for deletion.--Aldoman (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Aldoman (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — The article is notable, and the information. It needs sources yes, but I don't see the original research. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Monterray. Suburb seems not notable enough in its own right. Doesn't look like OR to me, just needs better sourcing.Yobmod (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge--75,000 population is notable in its own right. DGG (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete I seem to have misinterpreted the word "suburb"--it is not an incorporated area but a neighborhood & there seems to be no real indication that it's distinctive or politically of any autonomy. See the esWP article on Monterrey which describes it in part of a sentence as "el sector Valle Alto ". There would need to be more specific sourcing to justify the article. Without it, I'd be inclined to defer to esWP, which does not have an article. DGG (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: is it incorporated? If it has its own government then keep; else, merge it with whatever political subdivision it is technically a part of. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It is one of the 744 unincorporated "neighbourhoods" of the municipality of Monterrey. The real population of the neighborhood is less than 16000 in a city of almost 1.7 million it is less than 1% of the population, making it completely irrelevant.--Aldoman (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - real neighborhoods of a significant size ought to be included in WP. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has some style issues, but an area with a population of 75,000 is notable --T-rex 16:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted by Dlohcierekim per discussion below and creator's request. Dlohcierekim 20:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Iron Maiden's 15th Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While their new album will be notable, 'at some time in the future' is hardly confirmation that it's immanent, or even coming at all. WP:Crystal Ged UK (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It'll probably be recreated when released, but right now it's in planning, no solid dates. Hope to hear that they came out with it, looking forward to it - but for now it doesn't belong here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:Crystal -Rushyo (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Article is completely relevant and has citations. While the album has no official release dates, some users may find this article helpful. MaidenfansUS (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, dude, but it still meets none of the standards. Check the newly created account, and my response. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article meets Wikipedia Criteria as relevant and has valid sources. Metallives82 (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC) — Metallives82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- ...it does? There's a mention in a news article, that's it. I still see nothing verifiable or noteworthy, let alone reliable. I only see predictions of an unclear future. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice of re-creation. Mostly CRYSTAL stuff. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only verifiable piece of information in the article about the subject is that the band intends to record the album. Everything else is speculation, OR, or crystal-balling. And the future existence of something doesn't warrant an article unless we can meaningfully talk about it. gnfnrf (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - still too WP:CRYSTAL at this time --T-rex 05:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Untitled future albums should be speedily removed. Lugnuts (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't exist, so shouldn't have an article. What if the band all dies tomorrow? One line in the Iron Maiden article is sufficient.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the brief mention of what Bruce Dickinson said during the tour at the bottom of the main Iron Maiden article was all that's needed at the moment, I think. There's virtually no verifiable information about what this album will be like, when it's coming out, or indeed whether it's definitely coming out at all. Definite WP:CRYSTAL fail, despite the fact that I'm greatly looking forward to it! ~ mazca talk 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have reviewed the "Crystal Ball" policy and i agree the article should be deleted and I apologize for creating the article. Mike (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User blanked, so I requested a speedy, and it's now been deleted. Ged UK (talk) 20:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The primary point of consideration in a deletion discussion for an article such as this is whether the term has both significant mainstream exposure and encyclopedic notability, to merit inclusion. The below arguments show a far stronger rationale for deleting, particularily on the second element of contention. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Queen of Bollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page was speedily deleted a few days ago, but restored because an admin considered the speedy-deletion as incorrect, and suggested to start an AfD. Now, why it should be delted: it's total nonsense, unreferenced, original research, magazine/fansite-style written fangush, as well as unencyclopedic, blatant POV and false.
Almost every person who succeeds in some field throughout his/her career will be called The King/Queen. In this case, it's just a simple way of magazines/fansites/tabloids (even if they're reliable) to praise popular female actors. It implies as if these particular actresses are the most popular, while it's clearly not the case. In addition to that, the page is full of bias, some of the most popular actresses who are cited this way are not mentioned -- they were either overlooked or unnoticed by the creator (in both cases it shows how problematic the page is). Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 10:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - I'm glad that you want the improve wikipedia B.Wind, I welcome you to improve this site but you need also to read WP:POV WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and learn about writing from a neutral viewpoint. What I didn't like about the nature of the discussion is that you didn't assume good faith, particularly on my part once I became aware you weren't a newbie. From a neutral viewpoint "Queen of Bollywood" is a name created by fans. A whole page devoted to it is fan cruft at best. Whether we are all fans of Bollywood or not and this is mentioned in national newspapers, this encyclopedia should be written neutrally and avoid labelling people with POV comments like that. Besides this I have no idea why you think a dab page is necessary for what is only a loose label given in the media. If people want to find the actresses then they type in the names or search categories as simple as that. Such a page is highly problematic and people will begin listing their favourite actresses who they believe are the "Queen". Having a dab page on such a fan label, sends out a totally wrong message about this site. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 10:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a POV term at its best. Yes it a dab page but just because someone is given a term by the media does't mean it should appear har. Perhaps on their page, but only if it is to be found in an actually encyclopedia, not a gossip site. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 11:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete WP:NOR, but that aside I don't see this as being much different than the article Game of the Year- the only difference being that there is a minor degree of officialness asserted in the GotY article. Maybe if this article talked about the first person to be referred to with the title, the circumstances, etc. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)(changed my opinion)[reply]- Kommentar - Game of the Year is a formal term, which even has a definition, and is practically an award; the name itself is often described individually. QoB is just a simple description that magazines/fansites/newspapers use to praise popular actresses from time to time. It is not formal, nor is it (nor its use) particularly discussed as a term. It is unencyclopedic, POV, false, a hoax, and as you yourself said: original research. Shahid • Talk2me 12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the following are, by your definition, fansites: CBC, BBC, Time (magazine), Newsweek, CBS News, The Hindu? These were most of the sources that I cited as using the phrase "Queen of Bollywood" (and in the case of one individual, "Queen of Bollywood Music" - a term that itself was used in Guinness Book of World Records - it's in my copy of the 1986 edition)? B.Wind (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOT, a newspaper can use as a source of information, and Wikipedia can use it as a source of information, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. BTW, these are merely tabloid newspapers with many gossip columns and sections.
As for the Queen of Bollywood Music, it is again just a way they use to praise the singer. And it's fine, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We cannot describe her as a Queen, nor can we create an article for that. Can you find references for Queen of Bollywood being a specific/individual term? The Guinness book of world records often describes people using major praise, so I don't know how it is related, and how it helps us to conclude that such a term should be individually created on Wikipedia. You have to understand that, it is just a common way (of whoever, be it a newspaper or book) to praise people. Everybody who sees success in some field is occasionally and expectedly described as the king/queen of this field. It's natural, but it isn't encyclopedic, and by all means cannot be used in an encyclopedia, for the simple fact that newspapers are written by journalists who can write and describe things in whatever way they want to and believe in, butan encyclopedia should maintain a neutral point of view. Shahid • Talk2me 16:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NOT, a newspaper can use as a source of information, and Wikipedia can use it as a source of information, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. BTW, these are merely tabloid newspapers with many gossip columns and sections.
- Which of the following are, by your definition, fansites: CBC, BBC, Time (magazine), Newsweek, CBS News, The Hindu? These were most of the sources that I cited as using the phrase "Queen of Bollywood" (and in the case of one individual, "Queen of Bollywood Music" - a term that itself was used in Guinness Book of World Records - it's in my copy of the 1986 edition)? B.Wind (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - Game of the Year is a formal term, which even has a definition, and is practically an award; the name itself is often described individually. QoB is just a simple description that magazines/fansites/newspapers use to praise popular actresses from time to time. It is not formal, nor is it (nor its use) particularly discussed as a term. It is unencyclopedic, POV, false, a hoax, and as you yourself said: original research. Shahid • Talk2me 12:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination and argument by nom is a continuation of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 14#Queen of Bollywood, a deletion review prompted by the improper speedy deletion of a disambiguation article. Editors are urged to read the discussion there (as well as the comments of the admin who rejected speedy deletion - these comments can be found on Talk:Queen of Bollywood). Keep in mind that disambiguation pages do not cite articles, and attempts to add a single sentence cited by an international news agency such as CBC, BBC, Newsweek, Time (magazine), CBS News, and The Hindu have been reverted by nom, who quickly followed up with threats regarding WP:3RR on my talk page and personal attacks on his. Please also note attempts by the same editor to dominate this bad faith nomination discussion. His removal of the citations (diffs of three of such are in the DRV discussion) without bothering to look at them is clear evidence of that bad faith, and such repeated reports in the international news sites refuses his claims of "unencyclopedic, POV, false, a hoax, and ... original research." Speedy keep disambiguation page, permit addition of one cited sentence each to each of the article about this (which in itself does not violate WP:UNDUE) without further interference by nom. If there are missing entries, they should be added, but simply listing people who are reported by international news organizations being dubbed "Queen of Hollywood" (which, by the way, is a NPOV qualification for the list) does not violate WP:NPOV oder WP:NOR - in fact, it follows both quite closely. B.Wind (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort - first of all, most of what you have written here is not even related to this AfD. Secondly, you accused me of personally attacking you, without even citing a diff, and in doing so you are personally attacking me. Thirdly, I have read most of the articles you mentioned; I'm very aware of this. But the fact that newspapers use these terms does not mean an encyclopedia can do that. So, first of all - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a magazine/fansite/tabloid/newspaper. Just the other day I read an article describing some model Superfabulous... Would you now create an article called Superfabulous? Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that? Definitely not - because, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them.
Now, Queen of Bollywood is not a formal term, it is an occasional way to praise a popular actress, just like you would call a popular female singer Queen of Music. Everybody who sees success in some field is occasionally and expectedly described as king/queen of this field...
Resons why this list is POV and OR:- A) That term is used to describe popular actresses, and the problem is that readers will conclude that the list consists of the most popular. But everything is possible, and take for example Hema Malini, who is the most successful Bollywood actress of all-time; it's quite possible that she does not appear in any of those tabloids as Queen of Bollywood. And if an article like this exists, it will invalidate her success. That's an example of POV in this case.
- B) It's also good to note that many other actresses have been called Queens but do not appear on the list. Meaning, they were just ignored by the creator of the page. So he either overlooked some names because he doesn't like an actress, or -- did not notice. Both cases show the problematicness of such pages and highlight the fact that they are anything but misleading lists, full of bias, POV and confusuion.
Good to note that the creator had been adding this link to several articles of actresses, which is considered to be POV and excessive praise in BLPs.
BTW, if the term is so notable, would you find a source describing the term itself? Or better, does this term has its own entry in an encyclopedia or dictionary? Shahid • Talk2me 16:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort - first of all, most of what you have written here is not even related to this AfD. Secondly, you accused me of personally attacking you, without even citing a diff, and in doing so you are personally attacking me. Thirdly, I have read most of the articles you mentioned; I'm very aware of this. But the fact that newspapers use these terms does not mean an encyclopedia can do that. So, first of all - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, NOT a magazine/fansite/tabloid/newspaper. Just the other day I read an article describing some model Superfabulous... Would you now create an article called Superfabulous? Many reputable newspapers say, "Celine Dion/Whitney Houston is the best singer in the world." - So what? Can we go and add that? Definitely not - because, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You can add many reliable sources, but it doesn't mean that you can add everything using them.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If "almost every popular actress/singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called 'The queen of Bollywood'", as the nominator maintains, that in of itself makes it a notable term and concept. The inclusion of unsourced POV content is something that should be taken care of, but deletion of the article is not the solution. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost every person who is successful in some field is described the King/Queen - that's what I mean. Apart from that, the list itself contains original research and is misleading. It implies as if all these actresses are the most popular while it is certainly incorrect. If Hema Malini, the most popular actress of Hindi Cinema ever is not described queen, it will invalidate her popularity. Meaning, the list is a POV list. Journalists can describe someone, but ignore the other. It is additionally belongs more to a magazine/fansite, and it is clearly unencyclopedic, POV, inaccurate, misleading and false. Shahid • Talk2me 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. So remove everything that is unsourced. Have the article without the list. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- mmm what? the article is just a list. That's the problem of POV, newcomers like Priyanka Chopra who are not even that popular are described as Queens. On the other hand, it is quite possible that some of the biggest female names in the history of Bollywood are not even mentioned. That's the hoax, inaccuracy, POV, OR that appear in newspapers, magazines and fansites, but cannot appear in an encyclopedia. Journalists cite whomever they want to praise them and make them look good, but overlook others. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there are no better and worse, but only facts. Shahid • Talk2me 17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- problem solved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not resolved - actually the opposite. Writing that "Almost every popular actress and singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The Queen of Bollywood." - is exactly the reson it should be deleted - there is no source to prove that - there are only sites describing people as Kings/Queens of their fields, that does not mean we have to create articles for King of X, Queen of Y, King of Z, Queen of Bollywood. Shahid • Talk2me 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- problem solved. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- mmm what? the article is just a list. That's the problem of POV, newcomers like Priyanka Chopra who are not even that popular are described as Queens. On the other hand, it is quite possible that some of the biggest female names in the history of Bollywood are not even mentioned. That's the hoax, inaccuracy, POV, OR that appear in newspapers, magazines and fansites, but cannot appear in an encyclopedia. Journalists cite whomever they want to praise them and make them look good, but overlook others. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, there are no better and worse, but only facts. Shahid • Talk2me 17:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. So remove everything that is unsourced. Have the article without the list. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost every person who is successful in some field is described the King/Queen - that's what I mean. Apart from that, the list itself contains original research and is misleading. It implies as if all these actresses are the most popular while it is certainly incorrect. If Hema Malini, the most popular actress of Hindi Cinema ever is not described queen, it will invalidate her popularity. Meaning, the list is a POV list. Journalists can describe someone, but ignore the other. It is additionally belongs more to a magazine/fansite, and it is clearly unencyclopedic, POV, inaccurate, misleading and false. Shahid • Talk2me 17:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If everyone knows that every popular singer/actress is considered the QOB then it shouldn't difficult to track down some sort of cite for that fact.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no sources for that claim, because it's not a term as I said - it is used only to describe people who are some people who are successful in thir job. Many newspapers usually write gushing comments. Do you really think it's encyclopedic? Shahid • Talk2me 17:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If many newspapers use that term when writing gushing comments, its a notable term, and there should be an article about how the Queen of Bollywood is a term used by gushing newspapers to describe notable singers and actresses. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever happened to WP:NPOV? I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- no comprende what you're trying to say. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you removed the list because there are no sources does not help -- the list itself can come back with sources, and that's the double problem. A) There is no such a formal term as QOB. B) The list itself, even if backed up, is full of unencyclopedic, misleading content, OR, POV, HOAX, which belongs to fansites, mazgazines, tabloids, but not an encyclopedia. Shahid • Talk2me 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is in fact a circular argument... and a fallacious one as well. One, he was trying to find a compromise in this very heated discussion; so any assumption on lack of sources as his motivation is definitely errant. Two, you have yet to acknowledge that the article in question is a disambiguation page, which by Wikipedia policy does not have any external links (namely citations) in them. Three, a term that is widely disseminated does not have to be "official" to merit inclusion in Wikipedia (for example, consider the term First Lady, which is an informal term that has been first widely reported before becoming widely accepted even in official circles). Four, you never have addressed my specific questions regarding the previously-stated international news organization - in fact, it has seemed you have taken great pains to avoid answering the questions directly. Sorry - they are objective reliable sources per Wikipedia policy and ignoring them doesn't mean that the contrary is true. Do you have a reliable source on the same level as the international news sites and companies stating that the term is in fact a hoax? B.Wind (talk) 06:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you removed the list because there are no sources does not help -- the list itself can come back with sources, and that's the double problem. A) There is no such a formal term as QOB. B) The list itself, even if backed up, is full of unencyclopedic, misleading content, OR, POV, HOAX, which belongs to fansites, mazgazines, tabloids, but not an encyclopedia. Shahid • Talk2me 19:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- no comprende what you're trying to say. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever happened to WP:NPOV? I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If many newspapers use that term when writing gushing comments, its a notable term, and there should be an article about how the Queen of Bollywood is a term used by gushing newspapers to describe notable singers and actresses. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Open a dictionary, you will find the term first lady, which has a definition, and the term itself is individually discussed. It was not started by Wikipedia editors. You are now comparing QOB to FL, while you are not authorised to invent new terms. Shahid • Talk2me 06:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shahid is correct. There is one important difference between First Lady and Queen of Bollywood. Both are terms used to describe something but it is clear what the First Lady describes. The First Lady is the wife of a president. Now what is the QoB? What is the criteria for becoming one in the future? We know that by the end of this year either Obama or McCain's wife will become the first lady. OTOH, the nicknaming of various Bollywood actresses as QoB is purely random and is nothing more than a coincidence.
- There are WP:RS that describe what the First Lady is, which makes it notable. There are no newpapers articles, journals articles or books that talk about this QoB. I yet to have seen any reliabe sources that start off with the sentence "The Queen of Bollywood is a term... the queen of bollywood is also blah blah". What the sources say instead is stuff like Aishwarya Rai is the Queen of Bollywood oder Lata Mangeshkar, known as the Queen of Bollywood... Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. What this dab page is essentially doing is WP:SYN. GizzaDiscuss © 08:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - First of all, you said that -- "gushing comments" - they belong to the newspapers, not to an encyclopedia. Again, it's not a formal term. If it is, you'll have to prove that. There is no specific description of what "Queen of Bollywood" means, this is only used when describing some actresses. It is a way that is mostly common to fansites. The term "King/Queen" is not just used for actresses, it is used to describe people who are successful in their job. As I said thousand times, tabloids can mention someone, but ignore the other, who may be more successful -- which creates the POV and OR. As for notability, describing different people as X does not make X notable. As I said above, I read that some model was described fantafabulous. So if we read that several times, does that make this term Fantafabulous notable?
- You are yet to source the thing you placed on the page. Apart from that it is -- for the Nth time I say that -- unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not not a newspaper. Newspapers are full of such "special" POV terms like this one - here on Wikipedia there is a policy: WP:NPOV. Many people are described kings: King of soccer, -cricket, -pop, -football and so on, and it doesn't mean we have to create articles for them, especially considering the fact that they're misleading and WP:HOAX. I can't believe I'm fighting against such things: This is a sign of how Wikipedia is in danger of becoming a fansite. Shahid • Talk2me 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort. You're missaplying WP:NPOV. NPOV concerns the content of an article, not the name of the article or the term the article discusses. According to your argument, Greatness, Idiot, etc. should be deleted because "they're not npov." "Bollywood Queen" or "Queen of Bollywood" is a widely used term and a notable neologisms just like all of these neologisms. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Check Idiot on the net, in books, in dictionaries, and you will find a definition. Please find a definition for Queen of Bollywood -- the fact that people are described this way in a very POV and fansite manner, does not make it a format/notable term. Please explain to me what QOB is -- I wanna know. The fact that Priyanka Chopra, merely a newcomer, is described the queen of the industry, does not explain the so-called term, because it is not a term. First cite sources which will describe what it means. And the fact is that it means nothing. They call some actress: "This Queen of Bollywood is..." And btw, you say, "Almost every popular actress and singer in Bollywood throughout her career was called The Queen of Bollywood." - which is your POV. You did not cite sources, and the fact that Hema Malini, the most successful actress in the history of Bollywood, is not described as queen, only contradicts your POV and shows how POV this list and this "article" are. Please cite sources, and only then compare QOB (which is a joke) to Idiot, which you will find even in the worst dictionary in the world. Shahid • Talk2me 19:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort. You're missaplying WP:NPOV. NPOV concerns the content of an article, not the name of the article or the term the article discusses. According to your argument, Greatness, Idiot, etc. should be deleted because "they're not npov." "Bollywood Queen" or "Queen of Bollywood" is a widely used term and a notable neologisms just like all of these neologisms. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No content remaining, just an unsourced statement of opinion. No prejudice against revisiting as a proper article, but right now there's nothing there to hang a viable article on. 23skidoo (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no encyclopediatic content. --Soman (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my vote of delete. WP:NPOV is a core policy and cannot be substituted. Even if the article is pretty well souced, as it is now, it is basically a useless stub, and being called the "Queen of Bollywood" is still just a POV stab by the media. Google "Queen of Hollywood" and you get 500,000 hits, so being "king" or "queen" of something is still a popular term. See the articles on King and Queen for what I mean. Even if sourced, this is still unencyclopedic mediacruft. Tabloids are not reliable. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Literally hundreds or even thousands of new pages can be based on something very similar to this entry and none of them will satisfy WP:ENC. Apart from being WP:OR and inherently WP:POV, the "sources" in this article are not about Queen of Bollywood but are about Bollywood actresses and then the words Queen of Bollywood appears in them. That is a crucial difference. This is what changes it from being encyclopedia to a dictionary entry. So even if it has to anywhere I would prefer it to be in Wiktionary (transwiki maybe) but even then it needs a firmer usage. GizzaDiscuss © 00:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, either as a dab page or as more than a stub. The original (improperly speedied) disambiguation page complied with WP:D and WP:MOSDAB (under MOSDAB, disambiguation pages are not to have external links - and citations are external links). We don't go by personal preference in Wikipedia, we go by policies and guidelines such as WP:V (do multiple reliable sources, such as National Public Radio, which I cite in the The Queen of Bollywood RfD discussion the triggered this, refer the "Queen of Bollywood"? The answer is "yes."), WP:NOR (disambiguation pages by Wikipedia definition are not OR whatsoever), and assume good faith, which seems to be lacking in the nom and the multiple edits by the same person in this discussion. So imagine my surprise when I return to the discussion five hours later and find that the dab page has been replaced by a stub. Had it been a fully-fledged, fully-sourced, article, which under Wikipedia policy would actually be superior to a dab and addressing nom's concerns, we can all call it a night and say that Wikipedia's policies - all of them have been satisfied and that Wikipedia itself has been improved. Unfortunately, the stub is no substitute for the appropriately-formed dab page, and it has been abundantly clear by the editor trying to control this discussion that it would not squelch the fire that appears to have been going on since my suggestion of creating the dab page in the first place (funny, no words from the nom at RfD regarding the redirect that prompted my suggestion in the first page), its speedy deletion despite having no CSD grounds in its tag, and the complete unwillingness for one editor to even consider the possibility that news organizations from the other side of the world are even using the phrase in the occasional, non-biased, news reports that they offer (please see the few diffs that I put in the RfD discussion as I seriously doubt that anybody familiar with any of the sources would say that they come from fansites). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I, the stubber, have no problem with its expansion to include specific names that are referred to as the QOB. However, they must be sourced. WP:MOSDAB's exclusion of citations was not intended for a POV situation like this where having the title QOB isn't clear-cut. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that you would say that, Brewcrewer - please note the sourcing mentioned both in the DRV (I posted links to diffs in which the nominating editor repeatedly reverted the inclusion of multiple citations) and the RfD of The Queen of Bollywood (in which 147.70.242.40 gives links to articles from four reliable sources, including National Public Radio and Los Angeles Times), which means that nom editor is trying to have it both ways by claiming that there cannot be independent, NPOV citations from reliable sources while at the same time reverting the inclusion of such citations in a one sentence addition in the articles that are mentioned in the dab page. This is the essence of bad faith, not on your part, but on the part of the editor who is trying to have it both ways. B.Wind (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At this stage, I must point out that of the first 50 revisions of this discussion page, 26 have been posted by the nominating editor... and not one of them have addressed either the fact that the article is a disambiguation page (whose format is defined by Wikipedia policy and guidelines), not one has demonstrated that by Wikipedia definition there is a violation of the NPOV policy (and I claim that a properly presented and formatted dab page cannot be POV and cannot be OR), and there seems to be no attempt to answer my questions regarding the cited sources that he repeatedly removed from the Wikilinked articles. In fact, I'm not even sure that the questions were truly acknowledged. I am reading people from a cluster of editors (two of them tag teaming here, at DRV, and at the nom's talk page) saying "POV" or "hoax" when it's clear that it can be neither. For their argument to make sense, they must deal with the stated citations from the various international news organizations... and hyperbole (as stated a couple of times above - "all" and "every actress..." in the assertion are hyperbole unless the universal statement can be definitively demonstrated by the same reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't support the article that you reverted. This term, which as you see, people have strong opinions about, cannot go sans sources. Right now, only one of the entries has some sort of vague source, but that clearly isn't sufficient. I don't understand why you removed the sentence that I inserted. It's sourced, and it doesn't conflict with your plans for the article. In fact it enhances "your" article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether dab, whether an article, the information, the list is POV, and belongs to a fansite. It's totally unencyclopedic, and you still have not cited sources about the term. Brewcrewer, in your version, the "sources" in this article were not about Queen of Bollywood but Bollywood actresses, and then the words Queen of Bollywood appear in them. Both of you, please explain to me what QOB is -- I wanna know. The fact that Priyanka Chopra, merely a newcomer, is described the queen of the industry, while the most successful actress in Bollywood ever, Hema Malini missing, does not explain the so-called term, because it is not a formal term. They call prople in different ways. Would you find a source describing the term itself? Apart from articles where actresses are just called "Queen of Bollywood", do you have sources which explain the term itself? I'm sure you will either not answer or just say something different. Shahid • Talk2me 06:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't support the article that you reverted. This term, which as you see, people have strong opinions about, cannot go sans sources. Right now, only one of the entries has some sort of vague source, but that clearly isn't sufficient. I don't understand why you removed the sentence that I inserted. It's sourced, and it doesn't conflict with your plans for the article. In fact it enhances "your" article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At this stage, I must point out that of the first 50 revisions of this discussion page, 26 have been posted by the nominating editor... and not one of them have addressed either the fact that the article is a disambiguation page (whose format is defined by Wikipedia policy and guidelines), not one has demonstrated that by Wikipedia definition there is a violation of the NPOV policy (and I claim that a properly presented and formatted dab page cannot be POV and cannot be OR), and there seems to be no attempt to answer my questions regarding the cited sources that he repeatedly removed from the Wikilinked articles. In fact, I'm not even sure that the questions were truly acknowledged. I am reading people from a cluster of editors (two of them tag teaming here, at DRV, and at the nom's talk page) saying "POV" or "hoax" when it's clear that it can be neither. For their argument to make sense, they must deal with the stated citations from the various international news organizations... and hyperbole (as stated a couple of times above - "all" and "every actress..." in the assertion are hyperbole unless the universal statement can be definitively demonstrated by the same reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that you would say that, Brewcrewer - please note the sourcing mentioned both in the DRV (I posted links to diffs in which the nominating editor repeatedly reverted the inclusion of multiple citations) and the RfD of The Queen of Bollywood (in which 147.70.242.40 gives links to articles from four reliable sources, including National Public Radio and Los Angeles Times), which means that nom editor is trying to have it both ways by claiming that there cannot be independent, NPOV citations from reliable sources while at the same time reverting the inclusion of such citations in a one sentence addition in the articles that are mentioned in the dab page. This is the essence of bad faith, not on your part, but on the part of the editor who is trying to have it both ways. B.Wind (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
[edit]- Comment - My take on the situation is that we should not have a dab... nor should we have an article entitled "Queen of Bollywood"... nor should we have articles that use this term in their titles. What we should have are articicles on the individual actresses. The fact that these actresses have been called "The Queen of Bollywood" is information that can and should be mentioned in their various articles (properly cited, of course - and with, perhaps, a small statement to the effect that other actresses have been dubbed this as well). To equate this to similar articles... we have an article on Aretha Franklin, we do not have an article on "Queen of Soul"... and we have an article on James Brown, but not one on "Godfather of Soul". Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check again - Queen of Soul and Godfather of Soul are redirects as those epithets apply exclusively to them. Had either nickname been widely attributed to more than one person via WP:RS, it would have been a dab page instead per WP:D. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a way either. Too many actresses are called Queens... So what? This will lead to constant additions of fangush, and as it is known by BLP actors standards, excessive praise and POV. It means nothing, it's just an insignificant way to praise actress who seem some kinf of a success, and by no means implies that they are mostly/especially/particularly.
- An example is Priyanka Chopra, she is relatively a newcomer, who hasn't been that successful. And some newspaper (which is clearly a tabloid) called her "Queen of Bollywood". On the other hand, there is Hema Malini, who is widely known as the most successful actress in Bollywood; she hasn't been described "Queen". Now, compare the two, it's clear who is the more successful, however, the Queen factor on Priyanka's page implies as if Priyanka is more popular and more successful.
- Another note I'm repeating too many times: this is not a formal term, it's just an occasional way. It is not like in Madonna's case, who is the only one to be described as Queen of Pop. It is a common use for too many actresses - by different journalists and their POV. Collecting it here into one and choose all those who have been called like this so far (huh... any new article can describe different actresses as Queens, and everytime it will have to be updated :)).
- The reson it is proposed for deletion is not only the fact that it's unencyclopedic individually, but also consists of wrong, false and misleading information, which is POV and OR at best. Shahid • Talk2me 16:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it's formal or informal is not relevant to the discussion: it is whether it complies with WP:V using WP:RS and that the dab page also complies with WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. The fact that several oder many actresses can be reliably and objectively sourced as having been associated with that title in articles by objective, reliable, news media means that not only does "Queen of Bollywood" meet WP:V using WP:RS, and those news sources stating that it "has been (widely, in the case of two of the people in question) applied" to the person is an objective, NPOV criterion for inclusion. It's easy to weed out the nonreliable, POV, tabloid sources (of which National Public Radio and CBS News are not). In addition, stating that that the articles on the dab page lack the mention (and cites) after removing them yourself is not exactly kosher in the context of this or the previous DRV discussion. Shalid, you are dancing around the topic itself: regardless of your personal preference of the topic, if the use of a specific term has been documented in international news sites, such as the BBC, CBC, CBS News, and the Los Angeles Times in their news articles - and anybody familiar with these examples will tell you that they are not prone to tabloid journalism - does that not meet the WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS criteria? If the only sources containing the phrase "Queen of Bollywood" were fanzines, forums, and personal sites, I'd be in full agreement with Shalid, but there are too many reliable sources reporting its use to simply sweep it away - in this case, it would still be best to either 1) note which reliable sources are stating which person is dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" and (based on Shalid's argument above) make sure that each person documented by those RS are actually listed in the dab page (doing this is not OR by any stretch of Wikipedia definition - I know, for I read the article for the dozenth time yesterday), or 2) write a fully-cited and fully-formed article that documents the history and the use of the term (since Shalid insists that it is indeed a widely used term, I'd suggest that a history of the use of that widely-used term would satisfy his stated objection rather nicely, for the use of the term will not go away as it is getting worldwide traction, and as writer of this proposed option, he would have control of the wording so that he can assure that it is NPOV in his eyes as well). The best of both worlds would be to have the second option as Queen of Bollywood and to convert the dab page into a list article, which then can have the citations that Shalid would like - and the citations that seems to have been removed from the other articles, according to B.Wind. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Whether it's formal or informal is not relevant to the discussion" - that's your mistake. It is the most relevant factor to the discussion, because it's just a gushing comment, very POV, misleading and is used occasionally for actresses, even if they're not the most popular - that's why it is WP:POV and WP:OR. You can't assure that this is used to describe some specific actress. Newspaper can say whatever - journalists usually have no rules like NPOV. They are just keen to praise the subject, to express how popular he is. Describing them this was definitely does not make them queens, and they do not become the most popular actresses in the industry, as the title implies. Unlike tabloids, Wikipedia does have a policy, WP:NPOV. Also, we are not here to collect random gushing "terms" into one and create an article about them. Queen of Soul does not have an article, a redirect is not an article, and now go and create an article "Queen of Soul" writing something like "Queen of Soul is often...," and you will se how it is deleted within an hour. Not because it's incorrect, but because it's unencyclopedic.
- Now, when will it be appropriate? When you find a reliable source saying "QOB is a term used to .... The term is... and appears..." - but you cannot find it. You cannot find an evidence for its notability to stand on its own. So I'll quote the words of DaGizza, "Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. What this dab page is essentially doing is WP:SYN"
- In addition to being misleading, WP:HOAX, POV, OR (see my above explanations) -- it is above-all, unencyclopedic. And that's the most important thing, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is fancruft at its best. Shahid • Talk2me 19:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unencyclopedic" is in the mind of the beholder, and that "argument" is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which itself is not a valid argument for deletion any more than WP:ILIKEIT is an argument for keeping it. Also, you might want to check what WP:SYN actually says - again disambiguation pages cannot be syntheses any more than a dab page could be a coatrack article. As for the others you seem to be repeating, after reading WP:HOAX I fail to see by the way Wikipedia defines the term how it applies here; the oft-repeated OR argument is refuted by the articles in the reliable sites mentioned in the discussion of the DRV, the RfD discussion, and the sites that were mentioned above (and which seem to be completely ignored by you). The fact is that there is a middle ground in this discussion, and two different editors (Brewcrewer and yours truly) have offered them to you in an attempt to lower the heat of discourse and resolve the controversy, because... whether you like it oder not, it is inevitable that there will be either a dab page or a standalone article for "Queen of Bollywood" because of the sheer number of citations in the Google search - if you succeed in blackballing all three options presented here, it is only a matter of time that a similar (and I predict, more intense) battle occurring when someone else initiates the next article. A major suggestion from a disinterested person who is more interested in solving problems on Wikipedia instead of creating new problems or amplifying continuing ones: please take my suggestion above to heart - the term is, and has been, bandied about for years, if not for decades, and (so far) I have found close to 40 uses of the terms in news organization based on the side of the world away from India. You can either fight it or you do the constructive thing and have some constructive control and actually contribute and edit to it. My suggestion to avoid having going through this all over again shortly after the close of the AfD since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about the term (and most likely the history of its use): write the cited history of the term (more than a stub would be best) and then replace the dab page with it. It would be actually the most civil option here and you could actually tailor the new article to address all your reservations. Think about it: the AfD is scheduled to go a week (and the first arbitrary break was placed less than a day after posting) - it is highly unlikely that this will be either a speedy delete or speedy keep... and, frankly, a positive resolution is better than seven days of battle, and you've had one so far. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I correct myself about WP:HOAX - see WP:HOAX#Verifiability and (for Shalid's point of view) WP:HOAX#Articles about hoaxes. Both do come into play as the term is verifiable by reliable sources, and if Shalid believes that it is a widely held hoax, the latter section actually encourages the creation of an article about it. Also... has anybody noticed that the red link in the dab page has turned blue? It seems an article for the CD (which, by the way, would meet WP:MUSIC as Asha Bhosle certainly does) has been created. Judging by its contents, the least that should be at Queen of Bollywood would be a redirect to the article for the CD (according to the stub that is there)... but that should be determined only after this AfD has run its course. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I'm Shahid, not Shalid. Secondly, you say, "... the term is verifiable by reliable sources." It is not - it is just a phrase being used. The term itself does not have any sources describing its meaning. Shahid • Talk2me 23:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I correct myself about WP:HOAX - see WP:HOAX#Verifiability and (for Shalid's point of view) WP:HOAX#Articles about hoaxes. Both do come into play as the term is verifiable by reliable sources, and if Shalid believes that it is a widely held hoax, the latter section actually encourages the creation of an article about it. Also... has anybody noticed that the red link in the dab page has turned blue? It seems an article for the CD (which, by the way, would meet WP:MUSIC as Asha Bhosle certainly does) has been created. Judging by its contents, the least that should be at Queen of Bollywood would be a redirect to the article for the CD (according to the stub that is there)... but that should be determined only after this AfD has run its course. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unencyclopedic" is in the mind of the beholder, and that "argument" is a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which itself is not a valid argument for deletion any more than WP:ILIKEIT is an argument for keeping it. Also, you might want to check what WP:SYN actually says - again disambiguation pages cannot be syntheses any more than a dab page could be a coatrack article. As for the others you seem to be repeating, after reading WP:HOAX I fail to see by the way Wikipedia defines the term how it applies here; the oft-repeated OR argument is refuted by the articles in the reliable sites mentioned in the discussion of the DRV, the RfD discussion, and the sites that were mentioned above (and which seem to be completely ignored by you). The fact is that there is a middle ground in this discussion, and two different editors (Brewcrewer and yours truly) have offered them to you in an attempt to lower the heat of discourse and resolve the controversy, because... whether you like it oder not, it is inevitable that there will be either a dab page or a standalone article for "Queen of Bollywood" because of the sheer number of citations in the Google search - if you succeed in blackballing all three options presented here, it is only a matter of time that a similar (and I predict, more intense) battle occurring when someone else initiates the next article. A major suggestion from a disinterested person who is more interested in solving problems on Wikipedia instead of creating new problems or amplifying continuing ones: please take my suggestion above to heart - the term is, and has been, bandied about for years, if not for decades, and (so far) I have found close to 40 uses of the terms in news organization based on the side of the world away from India. You can either fight it or you do the constructive thing and have some constructive control and actually contribute and edit to it. My suggestion to avoid having going through this all over again shortly after the close of the AfD since you seem to be quite knowledgeable about the term (and most likely the history of its use): write the cited history of the term (more than a stub would be best) and then replace the dab page with it. It would be actually the most civil option here and you could actually tailor the new article to address all your reservations. Think about it: the AfD is scheduled to go a week (and the first arbitrary break was placed less than a day after posting) - it is highly unlikely that this will be either a speedy delete or speedy keep... and, frankly, a positive resolution is better than seven days of battle, and you've had one so far. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it's formal or informal is not relevant to the discussion: it is whether it complies with WP:V using WP:RS and that the dab page also complies with WP:D and WP:MOSDAB. The fact that several oder many actresses can be reliably and objectively sourced as having been associated with that title in articles by objective, reliable, news media means that not only does "Queen of Bollywood" meet WP:V using WP:RS, and those news sources stating that it "has been (widely, in the case of two of the people in question) applied" to the person is an objective, NPOV criterion for inclusion. It's easy to weed out the nonreliable, POV, tabloid sources (of which National Public Radio and CBS News are not). In addition, stating that that the articles on the dab page lack the mention (and cites) after removing them yourself is not exactly kosher in the context of this or the previous DRV discussion. Shalid, you are dancing around the topic itself: regardless of your personal preference of the topic, if the use of a specific term has been documented in international news sites, such as the BBC, CBC, CBS News, and the Los Angeles Times in their news articles - and anybody familiar with these examples will tell you that they are not prone to tabloid journalism - does that not meet the WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS criteria? If the only sources containing the phrase "Queen of Bollywood" were fanzines, forums, and personal sites, I'd be in full agreement with Shalid, but there are too many reliable sources reporting its use to simply sweep it away - in this case, it would still be best to either 1) note which reliable sources are stating which person is dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" and (based on Shalid's argument above) make sure that each person documented by those RS are actually listed in the dab page (doing this is not OR by any stretch of Wikipedia definition - I know, for I read the article for the dozenth time yesterday), or 2) write a fully-cited and fully-formed article that documents the history and the use of the term (since Shalid insists that it is indeed a widely used term, I'd suggest that a history of the use of that widely-used term would satisfy his stated objection rather nicely, for the use of the term will not go away as it is getting worldwide traction, and as writer of this proposed option, he would have control of the wording so that he can assure that it is NPOV in his eyes as well). The best of both worlds would be to have the second option as Queen of Bollywood and to convert the dab page into a list article, which then can have the citations that Shalid would like - and the citations that seems to have been removed from the other articles, according to B.Wind. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
147, firstly I concede that some of those who believe the article should be deleted are occasionally showing signs of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which should be ignored as you say. Having said that, the arguments and policies you refer to are rather insipid. You say that the "sheer number of citations in the Google search is a reason for keep. Firstly, you are talking about Google hits, not citations. Using the word citation makes it appear as if you are referring to policy but you are not. Secondly WP:GHITS is well established to have flaws, particularly when we are talking about when the article is encyclopedia, not notable. Google hits is still reasonable (but still not perfect) when it comes to decide whether something is notable or not. As it is, nobody is discussing its notability in this AfD.
You then say that it is inevitable such an article will be created again. FYI, it has taken more than 7 years (over 2 million articles have been created on other subjects on Wikipedia already) for somebody to create this page. So why has it taken so long for this article to be created when in your opinion it obviously should exist.
Also, you do realise thousands of similar pages with no value whatsoever can be created along the same lines. Okay, I can make up a phrase off the top of my head, "King of Horror" (41000 ghits) or "Master of Comedy" (80000 ghits) or "Prince of Football" (38000). Now all of these phrases which I just made up have plenty of references in newspaper articles, youtube videos, blogs etc. I can make up thousands more. I can make a King, Queen, Sultan, Raja of Bollywood, Hollywood, Kollywood, and every other ollywood. I can make one for every sport, every movie genre and God know what else. If it wasn't for WP:POINT I would make all of these articles just to show how ridiculous this is and how Wikipedia's credibility and reputation could seriously be on the line. GizzaDiscuss © 02:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- weak
Strongdelete simply because there are so many 'Queens of Bollywood' must surely imply there isn't an 'acknowledged' one. That being the case, this would be no more than marketing hyperbole, or a mere personal opinion of a journalist - either way, it falls foul of WP:NPOV. It won't be long before devotees of one actress or another comes and adds their own WP:OR as to why so and so is the undisputed Queen. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment opinion change: I now believe it to be salveagable. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unlike the Queen of Soul, Godfather of Soul, and King of Pop, which each have a clear meaning that has been established over time, this is just a phrase that can refer to basically any popular Bollywood actress. We don't have a disambiguation page for Most popular Bollywood actress, Most talented Bollywood actress, or Prettiest Bollywood actress, which I'm sure many Bollywood actresses have been called at one time or another. This is in the same vein. Mangostar (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mangostar. Edison (talk) 20:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes for Shahid - I apologize for misreading your name before posting the other night and assure you that my misspelling was not intentional in nature. Second (as I had only fifteen minutes to do an internet search between class sessions), here is a list of citations from (from the viewpoint of Wikipedia precedents) reliable sources that I was able to pick out from the morass of fansites, blogs, and forums while searching the phrase "Queen of Bollywood" (and excluding most referring to Asha Bhosle's CD, The Very Best of Asha Bhosle, The Queen of Bollywood as most of the listings at commercial sites simply show the title as "Queen of Bollywood" or "Asha Bhosle, Queen of Bollywood"):
Time magazine (2003) referring to Aishwarya Rai – also appears at Queen of Bollywood (TIMEasia, 2003)
Queen of Bollywood: Review of Bride and Prejudice - CBC, February 25, 2005
Aishwarya Rai's rise to stardom - Suniti Singh, BBC News, June 9, 2008
The Vocal Vamp of Bollywood – Newsweek interview with Asha Bhosle, May 9, 2008
From Bollywood to Hollywood - Emily Flynn, Newsweek, November 30, 2007
Dvd.co.uk listing for Bhosle’s greatest hits CD, The Very Best of Asha Bhosle, the Queen of Bollywood, one of many stores with listings and pictures of this CD CDuniverse has this listing of her CD
BBC Radio 3 – Awards for World Music 2006: Asha Bhosle and Kronos Quartet (India/USA)
Promotional listing for Asha Bhosle and Kronos Quartet from the Sydney Opera House (2006)
London Daily Telegraph article on Rai’s movie, Provoked
NOTE: The New York Times refers to Asha Bhosle as the "queen of Bollywood song" at Pop and Rock Listings – NY Times, April 11, 2008 while National Public Radio echoes the citation reported by Guinness Book of World Records in this entry.National Public Radio audio report with the phrase “known as Queen of Bollywood Music” in the linked audio report transmitted in 2004
All of the above are from reliable, objective (not fan-based) sites as anybody with more than a passing knowledge of these can attest. In addition, I have found these from sites that seem to be reliable, objective sources (per Wikipedia policy), but I do not know enough about them to state definitively that they fall in the same realm of repuation as the above sites (maybe those with more intimate knowledge could chime in as to whether or not they are):
Reigning queen of Bollywood - Indiainfo.com (2006)
Asha Bhosle: Queen of Bollywood – LA Weekly (2008)
Kronos Quartet and Asha Bhosle - CD review in SF Weekly, September 14, 2005
Reigning queen of Bollywood not taking it easy - The Hindu/New Delhi News, December 21, 2005
Arts Hub (Australia) article on scheduled performance in Sydney and Melbourne, 2007
Please keep in mind that this was done only in the space of only 15 minutes, about the time I spent writing this post (oh... I'm sorry, but earlier, I tried my hardest to locate the definition of a particular term, but no reliable source has even used "fangush" on any of its pages and sites, let alone define it. I must conclude that the term is also to be interpreted by the reader). Either way, while this is not an election (and as posting under an IP, thanks to a computer that rejects cookies, my !vote will most likely be downplayed), I am sure that the closing admin will take a closer look at all the points that all the posters have made and make his/her decision on the basis of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, including WP:RS and WP:V.147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, so it has happened as I had feared: instead of being improved as I had hoped, some editor[s] have added yet more hyperbole to the names, without stating reliable sources. What I was expecting in the manner of improvements to this dab page would be along the lines of "[name] was referred to this title by [source] on [date]", nothing more and nothing less. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was hoping for that as well, and added some sources, but this one editor insists that the article be a classic dab page which aren't supposed to have sources (don't ask). I tried to explain to that editor that modifying his/her stance might minimize the chances of the article being deleted, but to no avail. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although it's still far too generic a term, and I believe this will just become another List of Bollywood actresses or somesuch, I now believe the page to be minimally salveagable. Please refer to the changes (note: references and more bland text) I have put through for some of the pretenders. Sources should be supplied for the others, or I shall remove them. If a dab page shouldn't have references, then I propose we ceased to categorise it as one - I've done that, for the record. IMHO, there's only one thing left to do: rename this article List of Bollywood 'Queen's. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would also like to add that whether or not Hema Malini has ever been referred to by this title is neither here nor there. If her career success is not a subjective appraisal by nom, there should by rights be a source out there, on-line or paper, which bestows her that praise which can be cited. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Brewcrewer, I am with you on this. At the risk of redundancy of repetition, the original dab page was written in response to a suggestion in a WP:RfD discussion of the redirect page The Queen of Bollywood after it was noted that several news organizations reported several womens as being dubbed "Queen of Bollywood" and a long time editor (the IP above) actually included three or four citations. So after three hours of Google and Yahoo searching, I wrote the dab page, which was improperly speedily deleted three hours later (see WP:DRV for discussion); the deletion was reverted the next day. Since dab pages cannot have citations on them, I tried to add the citations and one sentence statements referring to the reports in the linked articles when User:Shshshsh, signing here as Shahid repeated reverted before threatening me with 3RR - I agreed to hold off under the disposition of the DRV (it was closed yesterday). Since then, it's been one filibuster after another, and the whole thing has been at loggerheads.
- Ohconfucious' (and Brewcrewer's) approach will do the job well - a standalone stub that accounts for the term "Queen of Bollywood" (which also is used for one of Asha Bhosle's 2004 CD) and its use in international news sources - that is an NPOV criterion, not POV, not OR. But based on the hysteria that had been going on since the attempt to solve a problem a mere three days ago, I seriously doubt that Shshshsh and his friends have any intention to resolve it, thus the loggerhead. I encourage their assistance in filling it out; the IP had an excellent suggestion as to writing this as a history of this widely-bantered term (again, an NPOV article if properly treated). No such luck - the only thing that I'm sure of is that unless there is a middle ground agreement, this will return to DRV if this debate is closed early, regardless of decision by the admin. Thank you both for your attempts to put out this all-too-hot fire; let us hope that more people appreciate them as well. B.Wind (talk) 07:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The next three days I will have to keep other commitments (as this whole thing has blindsided me at the very beginning), both on Wikipedia (I am in the middle of organizing a review of about 520 redirects that were created by a now-banned editor, for example - those who might be interested can find those at RfD - check the log for June 4 for the start of it), but when/if I can, I'll dig out the citations not already mentioned above by the IP and leave the rewriting to your - and Shshshsh's - (and the IP's) hands, should either of you are willing to "run with it." I hope I will be permitted to add the citations when I return. B.Wind (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frustrating, I know. Wrt the suggestion to track the evolution of the term, I would humbly speculate that to be a waste of time. I'm not sure there's all that much history to be had there. The term is so dreadfully generic, as so many people make a claim for it. For every genre that is created, someone will quickly proclaim someone else "King" or "Queen", so I can bet you anything that the expression is as old as "Bollywood". Ohconfucius (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The next three days I will have to keep other commitments (as this whole thing has blindsided me at the very beginning), both on Wikipedia (I am in the middle of organizing a review of about 520 redirects that were created by a now-banned editor, for example - those who might be interested can find those at RfD - check the log for June 4 for the start of it), but when/if I can, I'll dig out the citations not already mentioned above by the IP and leave the rewriting to your - and Shshshsh's - (and the IP's) hands, should either of you are willing to "run with it." I hope I will be permitted to add the citations when I return. B.Wind (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary section break 2
[edit]What is "Queen of Bollywood"? Please cite sources for this random phrase itself. Apart from being false, OR, and a collection of journalists' POV, it is unsourced. The fact that actresses are called QOB doesn't make it notable or formal. It is not a term having a definition - it is just a phrase used by random journalists who make their best to praise actresses. This unencyclopedic term implies the actresses are the most successful as well - it's actually the opposite. Yeh, Hema Malini is the most successful actress in Bollywood (I can cite sources), but is not called QOB, while Priyanka Chopra, a newcomer, who hasn't been that successful at all, is described Queen (huh!)
Now, I ask again, what is Queen of Bollywood? Do you have sources describing the definition of the phrase? What are the criteria to be called Queen of Bollywood? Her talent, her success, her charm or maybe her sexy body? Is there any basis for calling an actress Queen of Bollywood? Except for saying "Queen of Bollywood X", do the journalists say why they are called like this? There certainly aren't such things, which means that it is a mere POV of the writer.
Again, is there any source writing "Queen of Bollywood is... it applies to... it's been used"? There is no.
Ohconfucius, your message was amazingly precise:
- "Simply because there are so many 'Queens of Bollywood' must surely imply there isn't an 'acknowledged' one. That being the case, this would be no more than marketing hyperbole, or a mere personal opinion of a journalist - either way, it falls foul of WP:NPOV. It won't be long before devotees of one actress or another comes and adds their own WP:OR as to why so and so is the undisputed Queen."
The current version has not changed at all - your message still stands, and is very relevant to this QOB article, the title itself is a problem. Yu yourself did not talk about citing sources, you talked about the term itself being POV, I can't see how the situation has changed then. Newspapers and tabloids do not have an an POV policy, Wikipedia does, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. The situation will never change, unless there is an official approval of the term, and even then -- it is still unencyclopedic. Shahid • Talk2me 12:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a real term in use in reliable sources. Should be a dab page, or might be converted to a tabulaated list if there are many associations. These things are important to wikipedia for navigational purposes. Just because some people consider the term of little value, it doesn't mean that others will find it useful in navigating. For a similar vague term currently serving as a excellent navigateion aid, see List of persons considered father or mother of a field. "NPOV issues" is never a good reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a real term, please tell me what it is, and cite sources. I want to know (as said bt Dagizza): what is the QoB? What is the criteria for becoming one in the future? The nicknaming of various Bollywood actresses as QoB is purely random and is nothing more than a coincidence.
- There are no newpapers articles, journals articles or books that talk about this QoB. It is not formal, nor does it have a definition. I yet to have seen any reliabe sources that start off with the sentence "The Queen of Bollywood is a term... the queen of bollywood is also blah blah". What the sources say instead is stuff like Aishwarya Rai is the Queen of Bollywood or Lata Mangeshkar, known as the Queen of Bollywood... Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. What this dab page is essentially doing is WP:SYN. We are not authorised to invent new terms and define them on our own.
- So I once again ask you, what is the QoB? And what is the criteria for becoming one in the future? Please cite sources when answering the question. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 12:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn’t matter that the QofB is or is not a well defined thing. It, itself, need not even be notable in itself. We are not debating a standalone article. Even if it is purely random, fanciful, erroneous, ridiculous, the fact is that the term happens and it is easily a conceivable search term. WP:SYN does not apply to the organisation of navigation aids for existing content. The term appears in reliable sources, therefore we are not inventing it. It doesn’t matter what a QoB is, and the criteria should only be a citation in a reliable and reputable source, others would perhaps two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you clearly did not know how to answer the question. And it actually does matter. All of what you said in regard to the page itself is correct: it is purely random, fanciful, erroneous, ridiculous.
- And I'm adding that it is very POV, OR, as well as misleading and false. All these constitute the reason to why this random unencyclopedic phrase does not deserve an article. All those criteria apply to every page, whether an article or dab. And not, it not even a dab.
- I have no idea why you think a dab page is necessary for what is only a loose label given in the media. If people want to find the actresses then they type in the names or search categories as simple as that. Nobody will type "Wueen of Bollywood". Having a dab page on such a fan label, sends out a totally wrong message about this site. This is fancruft at best. Shahid • Talk2me 13:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling another's statement "fanciful" and "ridiculous" is what "sends out a totally wrong message about this site." This WP:CIVIL problem is exasperated by you repeating your mantra about OR and fancruft without (seemingly) reading other editors repeatetly pointing out your policy misconceptions. But let me try again. 1)OR does not apply - only sourced information is in the article 2)"fancruft" does not apply - we decide notability, not importance 3)"false" does not apply - the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (wp:v). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Calling another's statement..." - please read the entire thread before accusing other editors of incivility. I was actually quoting SmokeyJoe's description.
- Yes, I'll keep with my mantra, so please have a read, and I want to know if you can answer my questions:
- A) OR - The term implies the actresses are the most successful and undisputed queens of Bollywood, but it's actually the opposite. Hema Malini is the most successful actress in Bollywood (I can cite sources), but is not called QOB, while Priyanka Chopra, a newcomer, who hasn't been that successful at all, is described Queen. That's POV, that's WP:OR.
- B) Fancruft - OK, I'll go on with the notability issue now.
- C) False - "does not apply"?? WP:HOAX is one of the major criteria for deletion.
- Now - notability - except for being misleading, false and unencyclopedic - it is non-notable. It is a collection of journalists' POV. The fact that actresses are called QOB doesn't make it notable or formal. It is not a term having a definition - it is just a phrase used by random journalists who make their best to praise actresses. They do not explain what the term means.
- I would like you to answer some questions, which I have repeatedly asked and wasn't told of anything new:
- What is Queen of Bollywood? Do you have sources describing the definition of the phrase? What are the criteria for being called the Queen of Bollywood? An actress' talent, success, charm or maybe her sexy body? Is there any basis for calling an actress Queen of Bollywood? Except for saying "Our beautiful Queen of Bollywood X, is going to act in a film...", do the journalists say why the actresses are called like this? There certainly aren't such things, for the simple fact that it is a mere POV of the writer, and thus, non-notable. Many poetic words and phrases are used to praise people. Newspapers do that daily. Wikipedia, BTW, is not a newspaper.
- But if these poetic words/phrases were discussed themselves, it'd be another story. However, there are no newpaper articles, journal articles or books that talk about this QoB. It does not have a formal approval, nor does it have a definition. I yet to have seen any reliabe sources that start off with the sentence "The Queen of Bollywood is a term... the queen of bollywood is also blah blah". What the sources say instead is stuff like "Aishwarya Rai is the Queen of Bollywood" or "Lata Mangeshkar, known as the Queen of Bollywood..." Not one of these sources talk about the term generically. It is not discussed individually, and even the journalists do not bother to explain it.
- If you want to have a Wikipedia article on it, you should at least know what the title means. The notability of this phrase/term will never be established, unless there is an official approval of the term (definition, particular inclusion, individual description), and even then -- it is still unencyclopedic. So I (come with my mantra) finally once again ask you, Brewcrewer: what is the QoB? And what is the criteria for becoming one in the future? Please cite sources when answering the question. Thanks, Shahid • Talk2me 22:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what a QOB is, and it doesn't make a difference. We only report what is stated in reliable sources. Reliable sources refer to different people in Bollywood as the QOB, and right now that is the premise of the article. An article about a subject doesn't have to give all the answers about the subject, they only provide what is backed up with reliable sources. If one day a reliable source has a write-up on how exactly define QOB, it can be added to the article at that time. But a notable subject doesn't have to have the answers to all the questions before it is a valid article. A valid article is an article that is based on a notable subject and is sourced with reliable sources. It is highly likely that one day someone will attempt to define what exactly is a QOB. Indeed, it is also likely that it has been defined, but the source has yet to be found. But the point is, the exact definition isn't a prerequisite for it to be a valid article. See Wikipedia:There is no deadline. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't know what it is - it clearly means that the term is non-notable. Random phrases do not become worth an article or notable only after being mentioned to praise someone. As for your note, "doesn't have to give all the answers about the subject" - the question "What is Queen of Bollywood?" does not ask you all the answers, but very, and actually the most, basic detail. Shahid • Talk2me 10:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For another example of an article about something that is widely informally discussed but doesn't officially exist, see NCAA Division I-A National Football Championship - and even the cited collection in the article is incomplete regarding the inclusion of various "national champions" prior to 1968 (in fact, the stated rule for inclusion in the article is more POV than that of the original QOB disambiguation page). B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what a QOB is, and it doesn't make a difference. We only report what is stated in reliable sources. Reliable sources refer to different people in Bollywood as the QOB, and right now that is the premise of the article. An article about a subject doesn't have to give all the answers about the subject, they only provide what is backed up with reliable sources. If one day a reliable source has a write-up on how exactly define QOB, it can be added to the article at that time. But a notable subject doesn't have to have the answers to all the questions before it is a valid article. A valid article is an article that is based on a notable subject and is sourced with reliable sources. It is highly likely that one day someone will attempt to define what exactly is a QOB. Indeed, it is also likely that it has been defined, but the source has yet to be found. But the point is, the exact definition isn't a prerequisite for it to be a valid article. See Wikipedia:There is no deadline. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling another's statement "fanciful" and "ridiculous" is what "sends out a totally wrong message about this site." This WP:CIVIL problem is exasperated by you repeating your mantra about OR and fancruft without (seemingly) reading other editors repeatetly pointing out your policy misconceptions. But let me try again. 1)OR does not apply - only sourced information is in the article 2)"fancruft" does not apply - we decide notability, not importance 3)"false" does not apply - the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (wp:v). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn’t matter that the QofB is or is not a well defined thing. It, itself, need not even be notable in itself. We are not debating a standalone article. Even if it is purely random, fanciful, erroneous, ridiculous, the fact is that the term happens and it is easily a conceivable search term. WP:SYN does not apply to the organisation of navigation aids for existing content. The term appears in reliable sources, therefore we are not inventing it. It doesn’t matter what a QoB is, and the criteria should only be a citation in a reliable and reputable source, others would perhaps two. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Just a collection of random hyperbolic mentions in newspaper articles and press releases and so forth, usually by the film company that hired the actress and so forth. If it was a universal reference to some person we can make a redirect to that person, but in this case, we just have a copllection of mentions, and no general reference about the etymology etc of the name. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment -on having reviewed the potential links for inserting into the article, I found only this one which could go some way to determine or define what the term is. However, there is no universality in that definition, although one could assume it. I still cannot escape the conclusion that it is still waaaaay too generic a neologism to be meaningful. A link such as this LA Weekly article, shows the phrase 'Queen of Bollywood' used in a very good example of press jingoism and headline creation. Overall, I would still favour deleting. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So do I. I'm very aware of this article. The only thing this article does is again discussing the popular actresses of Bollywood, and in order to explain how popular they are - they are using this metaphor called QOB (again - that's what this term implies - that these actresses are the most popular, while the most popular actresses in the history of Bollywood are not called QOB; they often do that when it comes to young beautiful and moderately successful actresses). It is particularly laughable that its main idea is the nest" queens...
- Another expression of POV -- Preity, one of the most popular Bollywood actresses has been added only today by you. This shows how funny this is. There must be many other actresses who've been overlooked or unnoticed. Both cases show how problematic this page is. Shahid • Talk2me 10:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the last post demonstrates the lack of good faith that had been going on from the beginning from an editor who has been trying to assert ownership of the topic. The more constructive, more civil thing to do is to correct any perceived omissions is to add what's missing from the article and not just protest or complain about it repeatedly. Over the hundreds of AfDs I've seen and participated in over the past three or four years, this is the only one that I've seen in which the nominating editor has had the urge to respond to each and every comment made by people who were either in favor of keeping the article or even acknowledging points against deletion (usually the filibustering is by someone who is trying to save the article against all odds), and most closing admins take such behavior in the discussion in consideration when it's decision time (and most likely the discussion at DRV will also be considered as well). B.Wind (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to edit a "subject" which doesn't even deserve to have an article, because I think it's POV, OR, misleading and all the descriptions I have already given it. This is something I appreciate, but definitely not this. Shahid • Talk2me 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet you have not such problem editing a sourced article - several times, I must add - that shows the Zee Cine Awards having an "official" award called... is everybody ready for this?... "Queen of Bollywood." Sorry, repeating the same thing over and over in light of increased evidence to the contrary doesn't add to your arguments: it diminishes them. After over 50 edits to this discussion, how many people are going to read each and every one of them when the AfD is closed? Also, if you still believe that there is no "official" use of the term in addition to those that have been already cited, you'll need to remove all such uses, including the cited award in the article that you've edited. I reiterate: one way or another, there will be a bluelink here (thanks to both the award and album... at least) whether you want it here or not. So, which do you think would be the most prudent action: dig in you heels or realize that your input in this article would indeed be most helpful and help make sure that it is the most objective, complete article that it could be? Or would you like to see the other shoe drop? I'd rather we work together and have it done right (with many thanks for the hard work from Ohconfucious and Brewcrewer). B.Wind (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not going to edit a "subject" which doesn't even deserve to have an article, because I think it's POV, OR, misleading and all the descriptions I have already given it. This is something I appreciate, but definitely not this. Shahid • Talk2me 17:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the last post demonstrates the lack of good faith that had been going on from the beginning from an editor who has been trying to assert ownership of the topic. The more constructive, more civil thing to do is to correct any perceived omissions is to add what's missing from the article and not just protest or complain about it repeatedly. Over the hundreds of AfDs I've seen and participated in over the past three or four years, this is the only one that I've seen in which the nominating editor has had the urge to respond to each and every comment made by people who were either in favor of keeping the article or even acknowledging points against deletion (usually the filibustering is by someone who is trying to save the article against all odds), and most closing admins take such behavior in the discussion in consideration when it's decision time (and most likely the discussion at DRV will also be considered as well). B.Wind (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now that an award of that name from a notable organisation has been shown to exist, it strengthens no end the argument for keep. Its existence arguably demolishes all allegations of failing WP:NPOV in the namespace. However, I've noted a number of uses of the 'title' with the word 'queen' not capitalised - let's not forget to clearly point out the generic nature of the term. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which award? Are you talking about Queen of Hearts, which had been given to only two actresses before it was closed? Well it has nothing to do with QOB. There isn't an award called Queen of Bollywood, and even if there was, it wouldn't mean nothing, because the award would talk for itself, and would have nothing to do with the non-notable and misleading phrase QOB, which is used by journalists. Shahid • Talk2me 09:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see... You mean the recent Special Award... Fine - you can create this category for the award. But it still has nothing to do with this QOB, which is just a phrase being used randomly by journalists; a phrase that doesn't have a definition. Also very well staed by Ohconfucius, "the word 'queen' [is] not capitalised" - which means that this is not a term that can stand on its own.
- BTW, the award was given to non other than... Gauri Khan! And BTW, she is not an actress. Shahid • Talk2me 10:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which award? Are you talking about Queen of Hearts, which had been given to only two actresses before it was closed? Well it has nothing to do with QOB. There isn't an award called Queen of Bollywood, and even if there was, it wouldn't mean nothing, because the award would talk for itself, and would have nothing to do with the non-notable and misleading phrase QOB, which is used by journalists. Shahid • Talk2me 09:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin. Please take notice of the overhaul of the article that took place after most of the delete! votes were cast. The rationales given do not apply to the article in its current state. Indeed, we are basically left with only one editor (the nom) who refuses to budge from his postion. Kudos to User:Ohconfucius for the outstanding work that was done to the article. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - you voted to keep, so it's obvious you would say that, but the fact is that all of what was written by those who voted to delete, is still relevant - nothing has changed. The phrase is still a random phrase in violation of WP:POV, WP:OR, WP:HOAX, WP:NOT.
- You still cannot answer (with sources obviously) the questions, "What is Queen of Bollywood?" and "What are the criteria for becoming one?". Those questions have been raised almost by every editor here.
- And most importantly, User:Ohconfucius himself, still votes delete. (Note, I know it's not a voting, but it's the easiest verb to use in such a case.) Shahid • Talk2me 18:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- What does this "relist" mean? Shahid • Talk2me 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability seems established by citations. Also remove all the darn tags at the top of the article. Whoever added them should be slapped hard with a wet noodle. That's just out of control.Hobit (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Notability is not established becuase the phrase is not a term, and it is undefined. Could you please tell me what Queen of Bollywood is? And what is the criteria for becoming one? Please cite sources when answering. Shahid • Talk2me 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The addition of all those tags, is IMO, uncivil and verging on an abuse of the system. I'm not sure _who_ added them (I didn't check) but that opinion isn't uncivil. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the "article". Could you please tell me what Queen of Bollywood is? And what is the criteria for becoming one? Please cite sources when answering. Shahid • Talk2me 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you just start out accusing people of being uncivil and then want answers to your questions? I'll right, I'll bite. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501031027-524507,00.html uses it, as one would expect, to indicate the biggest female star in Bollywood. Its the title of a Time magazine article for goodness sakes. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to accuse of - it is a fact. You did not answer the question actually. You said, "as one would expect, to indicate the biggest female star in Bollywood." Could you please cite sources for that? Without a ref, it's your assumption, and is considered OR. You found a source calling an actress QOB. Does the source indicate why she is called QOB? Does the source explain what Queen of Bollywood is? You can call whomever in every way you want to, whether it's X, Y or Z. But it doesn't make X, Y or Z notable. This case is the same; actresses are just described QOBs randomly in tabloids and newspapers. It is not a formal term, nor is it discussed individually. It has no definition, and thus it is not notable. Shahid • Talk2me 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you just start out accusing people of being uncivil and then want answers to your questions? I'll right, I'll bite. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501031027-524507,00.html uses it, as one would expect, to indicate the biggest female star in Bollywood. Its the title of a Time magazine article for goodness sakes. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about the "article". Could you please tell me what Queen of Bollywood is? And what is the criteria for becoming one? Please cite sources when answering. Shahid • Talk2me 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The addition of all those tags, is IMO, uncivil and verging on an abuse of the system. I'm not sure _who_ added them (I didn't check) but that opinion isn't uncivil. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be civil. Notability is not established becuase the phrase is not a term, and it is undefined. Could you please tell me what Queen of Bollywood is? And what is the criteria for becoming one? Please cite sources when answering. Shahid • Talk2me 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has been improved quite a bit, and I believe the provided sources establish the use of the term in each case. WP:V states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; this means that with the addition of reliable sources, we have passed that criterion. The article also passes WP:NOR for the same reason- the use of reliable sources. The article maintains a neutral point of view as well. There's the question of whether there even is a definition of QoB; I don't see this as a problem for creating an article on the term (see Killer application for example). I think the article needs improvement not deletion. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't believe, and don't know what to say. If a phrase does not have a definition, nobody knows what it is, and is essentially a random phrase used occasionally in tabloids to glorify actresses who in many cases are not even that popular, I can't see notability. It is clearly not a term, it is not discussed individually, nothing can be written about it except "journalist A said actress B is QOB". The sources only feature articles about actresses, who are just coincidentally called "Queen of Bollywood" by some journalists, who make their best to present utmost praise. Making an article of something that does not exist, something that cannot be explained, makes me doubt whether Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and puts this fact at risk. Shahid • Talk2me 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Use of the phrase, while established, does not mean that the phrase is worthy of either an article or a dab page. For an article, there must be sources that talk about the phrase, not merely use it. I see none. For a dab page, this seems to fail the "Deciding to disambiguate" guideline on WP:DAB. In other words, no one would go to the "Queen of Bollywood" article expecting to see one of these other articles. gnfnrf (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stewart Duff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Indiscernible notability, rampant MoS issues Madcoverboy (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources, article has little or no notability Refusetobesilenced (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless sources confirming notability are forthcoming.Yobmod (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. There are sources in a gnews search, but as they are all subscription sites, I can't verify that they show the claimed notability. Perhaps someone with access to UK newspapers can help in this regard.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet inclusion criteria for WP:ATHLETE or WP:MUSIC. No notability established.--Finalnight (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consesus reached. This is non-admin closure to AfD.Wikidās ॐ 12:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Asaram Bapu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily meets the notability guidelines with plenty of coverage in reliable third party sources RMHED (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Must be improved Refusetobesilenced (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many issues, but notable.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable. desperately needs sourcing.Yobmod (talk) 12:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Keeping this article would allow for Asaram Bapu to have a place for his information and also might be a good place for two articles related to him that have little to no sources/notability; Swami Sri Lilashahji Maharaj and Sant Sri Asaramji Ashram. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admin Nominator changed vote to Keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Heather_Christie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)
Non-notable. No assertion of notability. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability outside of Anthony Kiedis --T-rex 05:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Having sex with someone notable does not confer notability like an STD.Yobmod (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as G12. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 06:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rainbows hospice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No assertion of notability or location, advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Almost a word for word copy from their web site, so either a copyvio or an advert. Tagged for speedy deletion.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Message from GOD in our DNA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possibly hoax article, violates WP:NOR and possibly WP:NFT. Lacks any reliable sources. Seems like somebody's essay even. Very odd. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Had been PRODed 3 times prior, but kept getting removed. Last PROD was for "patent nonsense". Honestly I'm not sure if this doesn't qualify for
speedy deletion as patent nonsense, but I figured I might as well bring it here. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Sorry, I meant speedy deletion as pure vandalism; patent nonsense doesn't apply here. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR, Essay. Hoax at best. Protonk (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Speculative essay that interprets pseudo-arbitrary data as words from God. You could do that with a tree, yanno? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original Research -Rushyo (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Correct interpretation of the data using latest DNA sequencing techniques unambiguously indicates the message is from DOG. Peacock (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC) (or just speedy this nonsense)[reply]
- Delete Even sillier than the Bible Code, perhaps meant to be a satire on finding messages, but still not notable. Barring a documentary on The History Channel, this won't go very far beyond the guy's MySpace page. Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Complete bollocks Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per all of the above. John Carter (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe we can have a discussion about this page, check out the talk section. Do, please respond.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have some comments from people that don't hate this page. Maybe someone that can admit that the letters of the molecules of DNA, are fact. And that this doesn't necessarily have to be a message from God. It's just that it is there as one of the words.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Happy dissecting![reply]
- With all respect, I for one don't hate the page, as you seem to think. This just isn't the place for such a study into this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- could you maybe produce some reliable, Verfiable source that asserts some claim to this stuff? And don't give us your crocodile tears about bias with respect to the page. Please see Young_Earth_creationism, Biblical_literalism or Intelligent_design for notable subjects which are treated with respect on this encyclopedia despite their inherently false and corrupting nature (Yes, I went there. Intelligent design, biblical literalism and YEC teach people to be incurious, fearful and ignorant). They all have pages because they are subjects about which many books and articles have been written. I would sooner never see wikipedia again than see them deleted for their inherent falsity. Protonk (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Another note, are argument is not that the letters for the DNA representation are not fact. The argument is that the article as written is suitable for inclusion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We are having a discussion, and we don't hate the page, we just think it's nonsense, at least I do. You could make any message you like by these means, and the article offers plenty of choice. I like "CAT DOG RAP" best. It was clever of God to foresee the letters that would be used for the DNA components; I wonder why he chose to write his message in English? JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivia in English language. God (if He exists) speaks in hebrew or latin, not in anglo-barbarian. Humans (not God) choose the name of the DNA's particles: if Adenine is named Fadenine, Uracyl is selected... F and U and C... it makes sense. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In agreement along the lines of the thoughts of Zerokitsune Refusetobesilenced (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In agreement that the dna particles were chosen by humans. But they are now universaly used. And the english language was chosen by humans to be the primary language on earth. The letters are still there.Creation-of-Heaven (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Is that acceptable? Does anybody agree? please[reply]
- "the english language was chosen by humans to be the primary language on earth" this has to be a poorly orchestrated hoax. You've GOT to be pulling our legs about this. Protonk (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I look at it more as a "false prophet" (or more likely, a person making fun of religion) who has gone to absurd lengths to spell G-O-D. The "G" is from guanine, one of the four components of DNA, okay, that's fine, but the "O" and the "D" are drawn from "deoxyribose". I guess you could spell "Satan" from the letters in "cytosine", "adenine", "thymine" and "guanine" too-- cytoSineAdenineThymineguANine -- and without mixing the letters around either. Pretty stupid, huh? Mandsford (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blogs and Wikipedia are not reliable sources. See also WP:NFT. GRBerry 23:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Imagery in poems from different cultures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An essay (it even has the title still in), completely full of OR and POV, would require an enormous rewrite to fit in wikipedia Ged UK (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources, OR personal essay. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- D minus Mike would get an "F", except for the fact that he admitted that this is an essay. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - a non-referenced, personal essay --T-rex 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as essay and OR.Yobmod (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, as speedily as possible. TrulyBlue (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sri Sureshanand Ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable, no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable bio of a living person. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Unsourced. Mostly just large quotes. Maybe an article on all these disciples should be made?Yobmod (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete both articles per G3 Hoax. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eggleberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Eggle-Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Contested prod. IMO this is almost speedyable as nonsense, but is just coherent enough to bring it over for discussion. Patent hoax. – iridescent 19:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX. I'm also adding Eggle-Berry for its similarity. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - you might also want to include Eggle-Berry, created by User:PoisonCamel at about the same time his earlier Eggleberry was speedy deleted as vandalism. A possible sockpuppet? No googlehits for eggleberries, only non-related references to eggleberry. No connection I can see with this obscure film. (edit conflict) Benea (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy and Strong Delete - nonsense, no assertion of notability, no references for its content (the refs are for berries in general), no context to link it to the film it purports to come from, and the only "Glen or Glenda" film I can find is 1953, not 1975 as this article states. The article itself is inconsistent, stating this is a food made by mixing eggs and berries, then it mentions DNA transformation of birds so they lay these types of eggs. In short, there's nothing in this article that actually looks encyclopedic. Frank | talk 19:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deletion as a hoax article. No references are cited in this article and a Google search comes up with nothing. The 1975 Glen and Glenda mentioned in this article is also a hoax per Frank. Cunard (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete CSD#G3 Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - complete codswallop. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have proof that eggleberry exists and have added a citation so please would you stop accusing my article of vandalism of the nature of G1, speedy vandalim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentKB (talk • contribs) 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Frog day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nonsense article. It claims the festival to be a "long running holiday" that is "celebrated on the first Friday of October" that started in the "1600s". If it were a genuine Chinese festival from that time, it will follow the Chinese calendar, not Western week-based calendar. Voidvector (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bastille Day for obnoxious people who might look there Mandsford (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete until the author has given his/her input. Badagnani (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Gsearch not coming up with this particular holiday (and zero gnews hits), so either a hoax or non-notable. (I'm also not getting much notability for World Frog Day on March 20, so no point in rewriting the article to focus on that.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing verifiability and notability and for generally being nonsense. Edison (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC
- Delete Non-notable and unsourced. Reasons enough, even if it wasn't an obvious hoax.Yobmod (talk) 12:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep - certainly needs work, but it meets WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fibonacci numbers in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reads like a crufty list of trivia. No criteria for inclusion, plenty of unsourced stuff, plenty of seemingly non-notable stuff. Even if these problems were solved, I'm not sure there's a great deal of encyclopaedic value to such an article (so what if the Fibonnaci sequence was featured in an xkcd episode? What's the significance?).
Was previously AfDed; result was no consensus. About the best reason for keep (IMHO) was the fact that it kept the cruft out of the main Fibonacci article. However, cruft is cruft; that's not a valid reason for this article's retention. Oli Filth(talk) 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's been awhile since I saw an ipc article nominated, and this is trivia based on mentions of the Fibonacci sequence in books, films, comic strips, etc. Although I'm impressed by the author's recognition of references to Fibonacci numbers, there's nothing here that would be interesting enough to include in the main article. Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ITSCRUFT never being a valid reason for deletion, plus clear reader interest, and consistent with What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As that link says, "cruft" on its own isn't a rational reason; however, it also says "Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia.". As I said in my proposal above, I fail to see the significance or notability of the overwhelming majority of the material in this article. Oli Filth(talk) 08:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The word is just plain unhelpful as others have argued. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, more precisely: others have argued that the word is unhelpful. That doesn't make it unhelpful. It serves a perfectly good purpose to identify content creep, specifically the addition and inclusion of unsourced or unhelpful information that violates WP:NOT. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unhelpful and is used too often for articles like this one that pass what Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, more precisely: others have argued that the word is unhelpful. That doesn't make it unhelpful. It serves a perfectly good purpose to identify content creep, specifically the addition and inclusion of unsourced or unhelpful information that violates WP:NOT. Protonk (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The word is just plain unhelpful as others have argued. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As that link says, "cruft" on its own isn't a rational reason; however, it also says "Please note that while declaring something to be "cruft" in itself is not a rational argument for deletion, actual cruft — vast amounts of specific information on topics of little notability — is not acceptable for Wikipedia.". As I said in my proposal above, I fail to see the significance or notability of the overwhelming majority of the material in this article. Oli Filth(talk) 08:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Reduce to what is supported by cited sources since this is a list with no unifying secondary document--no secondary work discussion the subject of the article--each item on the list basically becomes a contentious claim. I'm on the fence as to whether or not the construction of a list like this constitutes OR, this probably doesn't, but the unsourced statements need to go. At that point we have 5 claims left in the article (may be more more, but I haven't read the references that aren't attached to in-line citations). The rest of the claims are unsourced or generated from editorial adaptation of primary sources. At least two of these claims belong in a different wikipedia article. AfD is not cleanup, but my point is that what would be left after this article is stubbed and sourced would be not be enough to merit retention as a stub. Here is what the page would look like: Article with unreferenced claims removed. And remember, there is no guiding secondary document for this list. No secondary work that lists or hints at a list of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture. Protonk (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The fact that you were able to edit this article to one which you feel satisfies policy means that deletion is unwarranted. I do not understand what Wikipedia policy or guideline makes you think that your version of the article "would be not be enough to merit retention as a stub". We have thousands of stubs which are far shorter and much less sourced than this. DHowell (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. At least this sequence can't be used by accident (like list of songs with colours in the title etc). Intentional use is mildly interesting. But cover in tags to facilitate removal of OR.Yobmod (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It does read like a crufty sort of thing; that's reason to improve it, not to delete it. The topic is notable for this reason: allusions to the Fibonacci numbers in writing or speaking on virtually any subject are widely understood. The article should document that. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just left this comment on the article's talk page, and it's relevant here as well:
- Now the fact is, many of the items now listed on this page are not sufficiently notable to be a topic in an encyclopedia. That shouldn't matter here, since it is not necessary for individual instances of a mode of allusion to be notable in order for them to illustrate that the allusion itself is notable. But I think priority should be given to examples that do illustrate that.
- Michael Hardy (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To play devil's advocate for a moment, why is Fibonacci's sequence especially worthy of an article about allusions to it? As someone said in the last AfD, why not Lentils in popular culture? Or Grenades in popular culture? Or anything else? Just because it's a mathematical concept, it doesn't make it unusual or notable that it's been referenced in "popular culture". Oli Filth(talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said anything about "especially"? It is one of many many things about which popular culture articles should and do exist on Wikipedia. As far as I know, no one routinely relies on the public's familiarity with lentils or grenades for rhetorical effect in allusions. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To play devil's advocate for a moment, why is Fibonacci's sequence especially worthy of an article about allusions to it? As someone said in the last AfD, why not Lentils in popular culture? Or Grenades in popular culture? Or anything else? Just because it's a mathematical concept, it doesn't make it unusual or notable that it's been referenced in "popular culture". Oli Filth(talk) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I copied my reply from the first AfD. Fibonacci number is long and the topic has a whole category: Category:Fibonacci numbers. The amount of information related to Fibonacci numbers makes it impractical to keep in a single article. Some of the listed popular culture entries are weak and unsourced but that is not sufficient reason to delete the whole article. And it isn't just mentions of Fibonacci numbers but also practical applications. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen There is absolutely no need to list every single minor use of the topic within pieces of media. For an article to be necessary, it would have to have many paragraphs discussing the topic in popular culture. Because it lacks that potential for various paragraphs, one or two paragraphs can easily be placed within the main article instead. TTN (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay so then you're essentially arguing to merge and redirect without deletion per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, something new should be written from scratch. There is nothing in this list worth merging. TTN (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can write something new without deleting the contribution history. Obviously editors aboe do think some stuff can be kept. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, something new should be written from scratch. There is nothing in this list worth merging. TTN (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay so then you're essentially arguing to merge and redirect without deletion per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The inclusion criterion is well-defined, but the utility of this list is not. If recreated, it should be as a discussion of how non-mathematicians have used and abused the sequence. There is no shortage of pop-sci books devoted to the numbers as well as a plethora devoted to "beating the stock market". - Eldereft (cont.) 20:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article seems to attract things like today's edit. Even if this were sourced, how on earth would this be interesting, notable, significant, or anything else that would make it worth mentioning on Wikipedia? Oli Filth(talk) 09:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would depend on the nature of the reference. If it were as memorable as Lewis Carroll's references to mathematics, it would be both interesting and notable; but this is a writing flaw: the edit should not have been vague. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkeep and note that, by WP:WHEN, novels and films are self-sourcing for their plots. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete completely useless article, could be summarized in a sentence or two tops in F#'s main article.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note Wikipedia:USELESS as a weak argument for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen A collection of trivia without thesis. Nothing reliable to merge back. Any notable appearances can be mentioned in the work of fiction, not this dumping ground. – sgeureka t•c 21:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it had a thesis, wouldn't it be original research? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreliable trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I didn't know that a Wikipedia article needed a thesis. The theme or major setting or significant plot elements used in notable works is notable, and collecting them together here is a reasonable way to do an article. A thesis is for OR, and if it had one it would be OR. This isn't, just the collection and summarizing. Anythingthought unreliable can be sourced or deleted--those are editing questions. DGG (talk) 06:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen, indiscriminate. I would support an article based on scholarly sources that collate and find patterns in the use of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture. As it is, we don't have any information, just data, and the article is an attractive nuisance — inexperienced editors see articles like this one, think of some similar trivia they know of firsthand, and just pile it on, regardless of how encyclopedic it is or how much original research their additions are. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- David, I think inexperienced editors make problematic edits to all sorts of articles and if we deleted for that reason we would have to delete article like George W. Bush that also attract bias or vandalism and so on. The solution there is to more aggresively educate new editors. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject of Fibonacci numbers in popular culture has been covered by academic (not just reliable) sources: See, e.g., Fibonacci Numbers and The Golden Section in Art, Architecture and Music, which lists a number of such sources. DHowell (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted per A7, non-admin close. ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahmed El Hadeka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable blogger/journalist. Appears to be an autobiography. All provided refs are to subject's blogs and other writings, but there's no refs about him. Possibly a speedy, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt with regard to assertion of notability. --Finngall talk 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete so tagged - A7 ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Great Depression Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Clearly research as the title states, almost certainly WP:OR, maybe a term paper or college essay. ukexpat (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear WP:OR. --Killerofcruft (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ukexpat said it first and said it best. Ironholds 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Nobody wants to read your damn term paper! Mandsford (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:OR --T-rex 05:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR (or copyvio if the the creator didn't write this essay).Yobmod (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential to Keep oder Merge - This is not WP:OR in the usual sense, in that it has a substantial bibliography of works used. However, if it were kept, it would need to be renamed to Great Depression in the United States, but we already have a well-referenced article on that. This raises the question as to whether there is material in the article under discussion worth merging. This is not my period, and I am not qualified to judge that. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing prevents the author from contributing to the existing article. However, copying one's term paper into Wikipedia is obnoxious and conceited. Mandsford (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into existing Great Depression in the United States according to Peterkingiron above. Unfortunately this leaves someone the homework of, you know, actually sitting down and figuring it out. --Lockley (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, it's summertime, who wants to do homework? Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Thanks, Alex Muller 11:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Shorter (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No references, dubious notability, merge elsewhere Madcoverboy (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the page. I feel it belongs in Wikipedia because it's a significant internet meme that is frequently used all over the blogosphere. I will begin adding references to its many uses over the past 3 or 4 years, and how it represents a significant internet communications convention.QuizzicalBee (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Fails WP:N amongst others ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. It's a cute bit of net slang, but I doubt there's enough that's been written about it to fill out an encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Has no cultural notability. (Isn't it just a poor quality Straw Man anyway?)Yobmod (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wayne Turnage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Chief of staff for governor of a US state is not notable. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per notability guidelines on politicians. If he was the governor himself that'd be a different matter. Ironholds 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This job does not confer notability on its holder.Yobmod (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per notability issues. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- World development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was originally debated at RFA1 with concerns about original research. I closed the debate as keep as there was some sourcing and it looked it a worthwhile subject on the face it. Having the nomination withdrawn halfway through didn't help either. Since then a user has quite correctly reminded me that original research includes synthesis and that this article is a classic of WP:SYN. I think this is a valid point and that my original close was likely to be incorrect. This is therefore relisted for further discussion as I feel uncomfortable going from keep to delete without further input from the community. FWIW I vote to delete Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree, it definitely seems to be an original synthesis of information. And for the record, isn't "world development" generally used to refer to socio-economic development? Calgary (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very difficult to decide (and now I know about the Milky Way collision, heh), but it does seem to taking a single existing source as its basis, and undoubtedly (without reading every line, I concede) adding a sprinkling of original research around for good measure. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm the user Spartaz refers to. See my comments at AFD1 and DRV. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by the same reasons as I presented in last discussion on this matter - mainly I think it is a better solution to remove those parts that are inappropriate rather than delete it all. However, if it still has to be completely removed, I suggest it to be redirected to International development. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Is clearly original synthesis. The facts used summarise complex issues to such a huge extent, that it becomes deceptive. Eg, they include facts about current extinction events, but none of the controversy. cherry-picking facts to synthesise is OR.Yobmod (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All right, delete it if you want to. I was interested in getting the big picture of what is really going on in the universe when I wrote it, but it seems nobody else is interested enough in the subject to contribute further to it. Every further "contribution" to it are discussion entries like these ones rather than to the article itself. So, practically, it is a waste of time. So delete it, and everybody may go back to subjects that really interest people, like canine reproduction. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, we mean no offense but the key word here is "getting." It might seem boring but WP is restricted to rehashing information from existing sources, with creativity treated as a Bad Thing. For reading, you might try Big History, universal history, timeline of environmental events, and such (although the last one is somewhat synthesis-by-exclusion). For writing, surely there's another Internet collaboration you could move this article over to. The idea isn't a problem, it's just unfinished and original. The notion of extrapolating known trends is clearly not your invention, but it's not clear anyone has found (or claimed to find) links between all your different levels of development. Such links could unify this topic. In any case, English tends to use the word "universe," not "world," when referring to concepts of grand unification. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With "getting" I mainly meant to come back and find a collaboration with everybody contributing with information and sources to what is going on in the universe (universal development might have been a better article name if it wouldn't be deleted). However, this will obviously not be the case in WP, and, since I'm not interested in what has been going on but probably isn't going on any longer (history), it's another reason to why I left the project a month ago. I don't really know why I've still frequented this article - it was futile, and so I find continuing writing this entry. So, to cite Sam Hocevar's public licence: Do What The F* You Want To. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a disambiguation page with real content. Based on that, weak keep. But definitely do not merge with international development. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Definitely no consensus to delete, especially after the article's substanstial rewrite during this AfD. The only main area of contention is whether or not to merge the content into Lightsaber, that is a discussion best had on the article's talk page. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lightsaber combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural Nom for User:Arcayne, noms rationale: "Article is full of cruft and non-notable synthesis" per this diff. ascidian | talk-to-me 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - on the face of it, this article has plenty of sources - only problem is, as far as I can see from examining them, none of them make the claims or present the detailed knowledge presented in the article. Even if this article does survive AFD and it shouldn't, the best way to fix it would be to stub it to a paragraph. --Killerofcruft (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - One source, much WP:SYN.— DædαlusContribs /Improve 22:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - since the article has been altered, I see no real reason to completely delete it, meaning we should merge it with the light saber article. This topic does not have any real reliable sources. If you're going to counter my arguement, provide 1 or two relaible sources that actually have to do with the article, as in, specifically, the fighting style. And I don't mean books that talk about some character fighting with a lightsaber, or a video game where you use a light saber, but an actuall overview of the style. And don't cite a google or amazon query. Amazon isn't reliable anyways, as it is limited to specific users who have an account there.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I get both sides of the argument. For the delete side- cruft, OR, lacks citations, and oodles of in-universe badness. On the keep side- there's the fact that this is a form of "combat" that has appeared in 6 films, several tv shows, numerous comic books and novels, and video games; that the forms were created from real martial arts forms like kendo. The article needs a BUTTLOAD of cleanup, but the issues it has require cleanup, not deletion.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)(Vote changed, see below)[reply]
- Keep It might need cleanup, but the content itself is notable, and has been observed in the entire Star Wars franchise, as Umbralcorax has said. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wookiepedia. I like Star Wars but this article is not suitable in Wikipedia. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Axe everything from "Another mention..." to the end of the Training section. As for the rest . . . eh, possibly merge remainder into (crufty) lightsaber article. --EEMIV (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge much improved content to much improved lightsaber. --EEMIV (talk) 19:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Supposedly the nom removed the 'non-notable synthesis' portion from the article, leaving the rationale only as, "It's crufty," which is a garbage WP:CRUFTCRUFT rationale that should never be used when brought to AFD. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. AFD is not cleanup. SashaNein (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep— As said above, the page deals with an idea that is based on a real thing, and is in 6 movies, many books, video games, etc. The page needs cleanup, yes, but it is still notable. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. In any event, consistent per our First pillar of being a specialized encyclopedia on Star Wars, of which there are published books. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not a specialized star wars encyclopedia. We are an encyclopedia incorporating elements of specialized encyclopedia (among others). Protonk (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As such we should keep this article. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where on that page does it say anything about Starwars? This is not Wookipedia.— DædαlusContribs /Improve 06:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It says that it contains elements of specialized encyclopedias and this article is consistent with elements of specialized encyclopedia. We're not Britannica either, but we have some of the same articles as they have. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this article certainly requires cleanup but that's what the "cleanup" tag is for, not AfD. Clearly notable and properly sourced. (6th nom--seriously?) - Dravecky (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, yes, but that does not by any means mean that the article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.12.206 (talk • contribs)
- Keep ...so delete the "cruft". A notable topic both substantial in-universe and real-world information. --Canley (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Merge. See comments below the bolded NOTE
Weak DeleteOodles of WP:SYN. References are primarily starwars.com and theforce.net. There probably are a few reliable sources that cover lightsaber combat in significant detail, enough for a short article on the subject written in an out of universe fashion. Those sources aren't here. furthermore, with the article at its current size and condition, the inclusion of those sources is likely to provide only a marginal benefit. And I agree with the people above, even IF the article remains, everything from Lightsaber combat in the star wars movies on down needs to be removed. ZOMG, talking about George Lucas is serious business.On a related note, this article reminded me of the burning passionate hatred I feel for George Lucas for his destruction of a precious childhood memory(EDIT CONFLICT) I removed most of the in universe unreferenced sections. Protonk (talk) 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I'm not sure dislike of George Lucas is relevant to the discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you can handle a little color in the discussion. Don't lecture me. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes maybe, but not when it's part of a "rationale" to remove other people's work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not part of a "rationale" at all. It is a comment appended to an argument for deletion. just because I happen to favor deleting this article doesn't mean that all comments I make are bent on that goal. Geez, I even added "on a related note". And I also don't like the insinuation that deletion of articles is somehow inherently unethical. Some articles fall within the scope of the project. some don't. The articles that don't meet the criteria to stay no more deserve to be kept than do the articles that DO meet the criteria deserve to be removed. On balance, I would prefer that the benefit of the doubt go to the article. Usually, that seems to be how it works. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is in a sixth nomination (consensus can change, okay, but six times?!), it's hard to see humor. Deletion of articles that are not hoaxes, not libelous, not copyright violations, not how tos, etc. is somewhat anti-academic and anti-the ecncylopedic tradition per User:Pwnage8#Deletionism vs. Inclusionism, User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, especially when we're a paperless encyclopedia with new editors constantly joining. Anyway, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't give a rip what User:Pwnage or Freshneez or whoever has to say about deletionism. It is one think to feel that a tradition of inclusion is good. It is quite another to dictate your own expectations of what should be included divorced from policy. It doesn't matter if I don't agree with the WP:N/V/RS/etc policies and guidelines, unless I have good reason to ignore all rules, I ought to be guided by them. This article will probably eventally be kept. Not because every article should be kept but because it has reliable sources and asserts notability. Not every article will do that. if it doesn't, the guidelines (which represent established consensus) suggest they be deleted. there isn't anything inherently wicked to that. Protonk (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I care what others think per Wikipedia:Editors matter. I agree that editors should not dictate limited inclusion criteria on those who are willing to work on and improve articles. And I agree with you that the article should be kept, because it has reliable sources and asserts notability. Not all guidelines, though, have as established consensus as some may think, as evidenced by such categories as this and comments like this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just another essay arguing that deletion is bad. Here's my point. Deletion, given the system we have, is value neutral. so is inclusion. what is a problem is the creation or the illusion of consensus from false premises. So when an article with reliable sources and notable subjects is deleted because people are convinced it is cruft, that is bad (BTW, that doesn't happen very often). Likewise, when all but the most egregious articles can be expected to be defended by a few people using their own expansive guidelines for inclusion, that is bad as well. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, Notability is a guideline for the encyclopedia. It presumably (again, absent some reason to ignore all rules)should direct action. You're free to ignore it, but ignoring it all the time basically is the same thing as ignoring WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA or WP:V. In each case you are substituting your judgment about which rules are legitimate with the judgment of the community. we all have disagreements on the merits of policies, obviously. Disagreements aren't the same thing as outright rejection. But rejection of policy and action on the basis of continued rejection of that policy is not constructive. so quote all the userpages you want about how every article should be kept if it doesn't violate some arbitrary subset (or alternate set) of rules. the rest of us will continue to operate on commonly understood rules. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should be kept because it satisfies the "rules". Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just another essay arguing that deletion is bad. Here's my point. Deletion, given the system we have, is value neutral. so is inclusion. what is a problem is the creation or the illusion of consensus from false premises. So when an article with reliable sources and notable subjects is deleted because people are convinced it is cruft, that is bad (BTW, that doesn't happen very often). Likewise, when all but the most egregious articles can be expected to be defended by a few people using their own expansive guidelines for inclusion, that is bad as well. Furthermore, whether you like it or not, Notability is a guideline for the encyclopedia. It presumably (again, absent some reason to ignore all rules)should direct action. You're free to ignore it, but ignoring it all the time basically is the same thing as ignoring WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA or WP:V. In each case you are substituting your judgment about which rules are legitimate with the judgment of the community. we all have disagreements on the merits of policies, obviously. Disagreements aren't the same thing as outright rejection. But rejection of policy and action on the basis of continued rejection of that policy is not constructive. so quote all the userpages you want about how every article should be kept if it doesn't violate some arbitrary subset (or alternate set) of rules. the rest of us will continue to operate on commonly understood rules. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I care what others think per Wikipedia:Editors matter. I agree that editors should not dictate limited inclusion criteria on those who are willing to work on and improve articles. And I agree with you that the article should be kept, because it has reliable sources and asserts notability. Not all guidelines, though, have as established consensus as some may think, as evidenced by such categories as this and comments like this. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't give a rip what User:Pwnage or Freshneez or whoever has to say about deletionism. It is one think to feel that a tradition of inclusion is good. It is quite another to dictate your own expectations of what should be included divorced from policy. It doesn't matter if I don't agree with the WP:N/V/RS/etc policies and guidelines, unless I have good reason to ignore all rules, I ought to be guided by them. This article will probably eventally be kept. Not because every article should be kept but because it has reliable sources and asserts notability. Not every article will do that. if it doesn't, the guidelines (which represent established consensus) suggest they be deleted. there isn't anything inherently wicked to that. Protonk (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is in a sixth nomination (consensus can change, okay, but six times?!), it's hard to see humor. Deletion of articles that are not hoaxes, not libelous, not copyright violations, not how tos, etc. is somewhat anti-academic and anti-the ecncylopedic tradition per User:Pwnage8#Deletionism vs. Inclusionism, User:Fresheneesz/Don't Destroy, especially when we're a paperless encyclopedia with new editors constantly joining. Anyway, "All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings." - Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not part of a "rationale" at all. It is a comment appended to an argument for deletion. just because I happen to favor deleting this article doesn't mean that all comments I make are bent on that goal. Geez, I even added "on a related note". And I also don't like the insinuation that deletion of articles is somehow inherently unethical. Some articles fall within the scope of the project. some don't. The articles that don't meet the criteria to stay no more deserve to be kept than do the articles that DO meet the criteria deserve to be removed. On balance, I would prefer that the benefit of the doubt go to the article. Usually, that seems to be how it works. Protonk (talk) 06:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes maybe, but not when it's part of a "rationale" to remove other people's work. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure you can handle a little color in the discussion. Don't lecture me. Protonk (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen - The article is essentially an explanation of how the lightsaber battles were choreographed--I see no indication that "lightsaber combat" is itself a sufficiently notable topic suitable for Wikipedia, and the comments in favor of keeping the article fail to address this point. If anything, the content here should be presented in the context of the production of the films rather than as a standalone item. --jonny-mt 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable per coverage in books and the news. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you strike through your books comment, unless you can cite a third-party book that is not based in the universe.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason to strike reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a reason when those sources aren't reliable. Reliable sources must be 3rd party. Not books developed by the same people who made the movie.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To further my note, looking through that entire list, there are no sources to assert noblity of the subject. Any books there that are not created by the makers of the movie, or authors for the universe are only listed because combat is part of the search query. Even the books listed that are written by the makers don't assert nobility in the reasoning that they hardly mention the combat specifically, and instead reference that combat was used, not the specifics of it. Finally, you cannot use books by the makers of the movie/games due to WP's conflict of interest policy; since they are the makers of lightsaber combat they would of course try to put it in as positive a light as possible.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So I ask you again, instead of listing a search query for the words light, saber, and combat, cite three third-party books to claim nobility, and strike through the search query.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a such thing as reliable primary sources as well and coupled with the secondary sources in the news category they are sufficient to construct an article an a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it funny you're evading. Please provide at least one third party source.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there there in the searches, such as "Lightsaber combat to hit the Wii... eventually" or "Star Wars Lightsaber Combat (Mobile)". Something that is in the title of articles or that appears as the title of games will have reviews and the like that provide secondary coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those count, this article was to be deleted because it was about a non-notable subject, the reason those do not count is because they both reference some game. Not the specifics of the combat.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be serious. Multiple appearances in the TITLES of articles that are secondary sources means that some article with the title of Lightsaber combat is valid for inclusion. They reference games that showcase the combat. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is being serious. The intent of wikipedia is to have information that is supported and verified by outside sources. It does us NO GOOD WHATSOEVER to generate a subject or a claim and then hunt around for a source to support it. That is the reverse of proper research. Linking a game review and a preview for another game as a means to substantiate an article on lightsaber combat is borderline. If you don't agree with WP:N, please help us stick to the intent of WP:RS/WP:V. Protonk (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dismissing reliable sources is concerning. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you for real? Are you even READING? The sources aren't being dismissed, the process of shoehorning any source with matching words in a boolean search is being dismissed. If this were an article where the subject of the source matched the subject of the article in any significant sense, I would be happy to support it. Instead, if the relationship is tangential, I can't help but question the method used to find the source and connect it to the article. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Knock that off. You're being tendentious and difficult. Parroting back lines without any other addition to the debate is a recipe for frustration. Adding "best" or "sincerely" to the end doesn't make it civil or polite. The basis for civility in this discussion is a respect for the contributions of others. If you respond mechanistically to every point y ignoring it and refactoring a sentence or to, that shows absolute disregard for civility and consensus. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will be happy when you stop being tendentious and difficult and stop disregarding civility and consensus. I am supporting consensus by supporting this article. If you don't beleieve you are going to convince me here, then why keep responding? In any event, we both seem to agree below that the article was improved and should be kept and therefore I suggest we not comment any further about each other, but only focus on the articles undeer discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Knock that off. You're being tendentious and difficult. Parroting back lines without any other addition to the debate is a recipe for frustration. Adding "best" or "sincerely" to the end doesn't make it civil or polite. The basis for civility in this discussion is a respect for the contributions of others. If you respond mechanistically to every point y ignoring it and refactoring a sentence or to, that shows absolute disregard for civility and consensus. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you for real? Are you even READING? The sources aren't being dismissed, the process of shoehorning any source with matching words in a boolean search is being dismissed. If this were an article where the subject of the source matched the subject of the article in any significant sense, I would be happy to support it. Instead, if the relationship is tangential, I can't help but question the method used to find the source and connect it to the article. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dismissing reliable sources is concerning. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He is being serious. The intent of wikipedia is to have information that is supported and verified by outside sources. It does us NO GOOD WHATSOEVER to generate a subject or a claim and then hunt around for a source to support it. That is the reverse of proper research. Linking a game review and a preview for another game as a means to substantiate an article on lightsaber combat is borderline. If you don't agree with WP:N, please help us stick to the intent of WP:RS/WP:V. Protonk (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be serious. Multiple appearances in the TITLES of articles that are secondary sources means that some article with the title of Lightsaber combat is valid for inclusion. They reference games that showcase the combat. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those count, this article was to be deleted because it was about a non-notable subject, the reason those do not count is because they both reference some game. Not the specifics of the combat.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there there in the searches, such as "Lightsaber combat to hit the Wii... eventually" or "Star Wars Lightsaber Combat (Mobile)". Something that is in the title of articles or that appears as the title of games will have reviews and the like that provide secondary coverage. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it funny you're evading. Please provide at least one third party source.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 07:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a such thing as reliable primary sources as well and coupled with the secondary sources in the news category they are sufficient to construct an article an a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason to strike reliable sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you strike through your books comment, unless you can cite a third-party book that is not based in the universe.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 05:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's notable per coverage in books and the news. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever. I'm halfway tempted to escalate this if it keeps being a problem. Protonk (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE NOTE
- As the article has undergone substantial revision/editing (from this disaster to something actually readable), I am wondering if the nom is not now moot, as it applies to an article whose crufty, non-notable, uncited content is largely a thing of the past. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Holy crap, that is a huge improvement from what it was. Thank you whoever did that for finally getting the concept of "out of universe perspective". Umbralcorax (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely agree this is a huge improvement, but I'm still not convinced that the topic is notable enough to warrant its own article (in fact, this is the version that I was commenting on). To address the links provided by Le Grand Roi above, most of them deal not with lightsaber combat as an individual topic but rather different strategies for playing various video games where lightsaber combat is involved. It seems to me that this topic will always be subsumed under the concept of either lightsabers or the production process for the movies, and so I'm of the opinion that if the cited real-world content is kept, it would be more useful and appropriate as part of an existing article on one of these topics. --jonny-mt 05:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough do deal with it, however, to justify keeping the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can provide some sources discussing lightsaber combat in an independent context, that would be great! From what I see, though, the sources linked above simply have the words "lightsaber" and "combat" in close proximity to each other--if that's your criteria, then I've got 31,000 hits and 101 articles for "puppy dog helmet" just waiting to have an article written about them :) --jonny-mt 09:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Enough do deal with it, however, to justify keeping the article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all - puppy dog helmet? - hilarious (you almost made me nose-boot coffee, you bastard!:) )
- Secondly, though puppy dog helmet will bring up that many entries, it is usually because the words are used in the same article, not because there are over 30k entries for helmeted canines.
- I wanted to point out that this is an AfD debate for an article which I (humbly) submit has been fundamentally altered so as to be able to avoid deletion at this time. The arguments for deletion are for an article that has changed somewhat significantly. I propose that we close this article as a tentative keep. I would support a merge nom into Lightsaber, as I think that those two articles dovetail nicely, and will allow us to trim the resultant article even further. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I also support closing the AfD as a keep. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the clean-up effort. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into lightsaber. It seems to me it isn't a sufficiently separate subject to justify its own article, and the resulting article would be more streamlined AND informative than either source. Mycroft7 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into light saber - Now that it has been chopped down to size, it will easily fit into the Lightsaber article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to be a notable topic. Everyking (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't voting, this is a discussion, please discuss how it his notable.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Others have explained that. Do you want me to copy and paste what somebody else said? I don't have an original argument to make. Everyking (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, others have explained their opinions, please explain yours. AFDs are discussions, not voting booths.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Le Grand Roi. Everyking (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an argument. Explain how it is notable.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's not an argument. I'm agreeing with a viewpoint already expressed. Everyking (talk) 09:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have said again and again and again, WP AFD discussion are discussions, not voting booths. Now I know this is an essay I am citing, but it makes a good point. WP:PERNOM states:
It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion. Participants are always encouraged to provide evidence or arguments that are grounded in policy and practice to support their positions. If the rationale provided in the nomination includes a comprehensive argument, specific policy references and/or a compelling presentation of evidence in favour of deletion, a simple endorsement of the nominator's argument may be sufficient, typically indicated by "per nom." Where reasonable counter-arguments to the nomination have been raised in the discussion, you may wish to explain how you justify your support in your own words and, where possible, marshalling your own evidence. Stating your true position in your own words will also assure others that you are not hiding an WP:IDONTLIKEIT position.
- That's not an argument. Explain how it is notable.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Le Grand Roi. Everyking (talk) 07:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, others have explained their opinions, please explain yours. AFDs are discussions, not voting booths.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Others have explained that. Do you want me to copy and paste what somebody else said? I don't have an original argument to make. Everyking (talk) 06:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't voting, this is a discussion, please discuss how it his notable.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 06:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So again, please state your arguement after reviewing all the Wikipedia policies stated, and all the information presented.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must confess to finding all this a bit funny. No, once again, I will not offer an argument because I do not have anything original to say. As for your ideological lecturing about voting, bear in mind that I was participating in these discussions back when they were called "votes for deletion"—I don't remotely share your perspective about the nature of AfD. Everyking (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As long as we're in a measuring contest, my slashdot UID is probably shorter than yours. :) Protonk (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It is difficult to see how various lightsaber combat styles could be as noteable as lightsabers themselves. Merge it in and have a section about it. Jtrainor (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I dont see that anyone actually wants to delete it. Merges are an editing question and should be discussed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to Merge per Arcayne's rationale. If, some time in the future, enough real world information exists to justify splitting it back out into its own main article, I would not be opposed to that. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep as notable in a large metropolitan area. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian Oake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable radio personality, no references outside of company and myspace, very few informative google hits, fails WP:BIO. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 18:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as subject has been the focus of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (some of which I have added to the article, others of which I have added to the talk page for some other enterprising editor to use to further expand this article, has been recognized for his work in a major US radio market, and clearly meets both the notability and verifiability threshold. Article needs expansion but the sources are out there (and now listed and linked) to begin that process. - Dravecky (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of sufficient notability, looks like just another DJ. No awards, no syndication, nothing to indicate that this DJ is known outside the local market. Google news brings up a number of hits but most are brief mentions of moving from station to station, nothing where Oake is the subject of the article.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Antwort: I've already combed through GoogleNews and found several articles where Oake is the subject and is even named in the headline from various reliable secondary sources, he was as the article claims named "Best FM Radio Personality" in '98 for the Twin Cities, and other on-point sources are listed in the talk page for future article expansion. - Dravecky (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply-None of the sources stated there are notable. They are all newspaper articles. If you can find anything other than newspaper articles and MySpace pages, I will put my vote to Keep. Until you can find an notable source, my vote stays at Delete. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is little coverage and no reliable sources outside of local newspapers. In most of the references, his name is only mentioned once or twice along with many other radio hosts. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 11:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - wealth of sources point to notability. Newspaper articles do count as sources --T-rex 16:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge/redirect to University of Missouri–St. Louis per the withdrawal of the nom. Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ward E. Barnes Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:N as a non-notable campus library—and not even the main library at that— without any history of its own. Unable to find any significant sources. Millbrooky (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sub-stub. No sources; unlikely to be significantly expanded; orphaned but for mention at University of Missouri–St. Louis. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just Merge and Redirect to University of Missouri–St. Louis#Campus. Why do folks feel the need to bring every sub-stub here instead of taking obvious editorial actions? TerriersFan (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have now merged the content into the target section so I suggest that this is now just redirected. TerriersFan (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw with Redirect - I didn't believe this article warranted merging with the main University of Missouri-St. Louis article, but your edits seem to work. I withdraw my AfD nomination with a redirect per your suggestion. --Millbrooky (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete - unanimous vote--JForget 23:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Social Influence Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Possibly notable, but host of MoS issues and blatant advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gee, this social influence marketing thing sounds really interesting. Maybe we should try it sometime. After all, if the community can reassure me that it has benefits then it must be a good idea. But still, Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. And the fact that the term is trademarked somehow makes me question its notability. Calgary (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The topic is certainly notable, but this is an unsalvageable advertisement. Townlake (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - partly advert, mostly how-to guide. I could imagine an encyclopedic article with this title, but if I wanted to get there I wouldn't start from here. JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: whether the term is notable or not, the current text:
But why does social influence marketing matter to you, and does social influence marketing translate into real digital marketing tactics?
The answers to both those questions essentially point to the future of social media for marketers. So let’s examine them carefully.
is such complete bollocks that no harm would be done by requiring any future article to start from scratch. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete: Nothing of salvageable value -Rushyo (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Its been tidied up quite a bit and makes a lot more coherent sense. Not sure if it should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.253.94 (talk) 05:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete due to original research/essay concerns. Davewild (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cash flow / provisioning interface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to be an essay on business management and/or economics. SGGH speak! 17:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Article provides little or no information that would be useful to Wikipedia, and it is not written in encyclopedic format. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-encyclopedic essay and original research doktorb wordsdeeds 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research Mardetanha talk 19:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete due to advert/spam concerns. Davewild (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vancouver, Coast & Mountains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - this article's intent/content already exists in Greater Vancouver/Lower Mainland, British Columbia Coast/Vancouver Island and British Columbia Interior/Northern British Columbia, which are the "top-level" BC regions. As a grouping, sans the BC patch of the Canadian Prairies in the Northeast (part of the Interior), the geographic grouping relative t o the Shield, St. Lawrence/Great Lakes basin, Maritimes etc is the Pacific Cordillera. This article's title/content also, yes, is composed of BC Tourism rebranding material/efforts e.g. "Kootenay Rockies"and "Coast Chilcotin Cariboo" which are not "real" regions, not by those names anyway; this page probably started by a Ministry of Tourism official/contractee by the look of such content. Fact of the matter is that the BC govt ministries ALL have different administrative/marketing regions - Forestry's is different from Environment/Parks, Energy/Mines/Resources different again, Tourism, Education, Aboriginal Affairs etc. They can all be mentioned in the course of other articles, and maybe redirects established; but they should not be the a priori hierarchical definitions, even if official; they are, especially the tourism regions - SPAM in nature as implicity advertising-oriented/created.Skookum1 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with nom, spamvertisement for non-notable marketing region, topic falls under scope of other existing spamvertisementless articles. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's well-reasoned arguments. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-This article would fit much better under Wikitravel. Provides little context that would be found in a Wikipedia article. As the nom. stated above, this article is just spam. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 18:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Spamvertisement tourism marketing. DigitalC (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This kind of thing belongs on Wikitravel, not here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Donovan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Non-notable junior player, fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as he has not played pro yet or played at the highest level of amateur competition which would be the Olympics or World Championships, not AAA youth hockey which the contestor of the prod stated. Can be recreated when/if he plays pro or otherwise achieves notability. Djsasso (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper nom. Subject played in World Championships. [9]. "This past August Matt was chosen to compete as a member of the USA Under 18 Team at the World Championships in Slovakia. The team ended up in fifth place. 'This was a big honor to be selected,” said Matt’s mother, Kathryn. “And to watch him play wearing a USA hockey jersey was amazing!'" Tan | 39 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment World Under 18 championships is not the same thing as the World Championships. Any championships where age is considered a factor is not the top level. Even the World Junior Championships which is a higher calibre of championship than the World Under 18 championships has by past concensus not been good enough to meet WP:ATHLETE. -Djsasso (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that part of the guideline? Seriously, I can't find that specified anywhere. Is there an official consensus? I know, I used to be like you, and demand deletion of anyone or anything that didn't meet the exact specifications of WP:ATHLETE. However, WP:ATHLETE is a notability guideline, not a policy. The guy has been drafted by an NHL team. If someone comes damn close, has been individually covered by multiple reliable sources, and is imminently going to meet the "compete at a professional level" part, then I find it silly to delete and recreate. This article does not hurt the integrity or credibility of Wikipedia. A perfect example of WP:IAR. Tan | 39 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There are hundreds of players who have been drafted who have never played professionally. Hockey players are drafted years before they even play professionally. This player is not likely to play even in the minor pro leagues for atleast 2 more years so he is hardly in the category of imminently about to meet the guideline. I realize WP:ATHLETE is a guideline. The hockey project as well has a more stringent guideline at hockey player notability standards. Again just a guideline obviously. However, this is definately a case of it hurts wikipedia to have the article, as once some of these un-notable players are allowed to live hundreds more will flood in. This happens every year after the draft. And every year we end up having to clear out these players. -Djsasso (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that part of the guideline? Seriously, I can't find that specified anywhere. Is there an official consensus? I know, I used to be like you, and demand deletion of anyone or anything that didn't meet the exact specifications of WP:ATHLETE. However, WP:ATHLETE is a notability guideline, not a policy. The guy has been drafted by an NHL team. If someone comes damn close, has been individually covered by multiple reliable sources, and is imminently going to meet the "compete at a professional level" part, then I find it silly to delete and recreate. This article does not hurt the integrity or credibility of Wikipedia. A perfect example of WP:IAR. Tan | 39 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A really rotten example of WP:IAR, actually. Never mind just hockey, where two hundred players are drafted a season. How about baseball, where a couple thousand players are drafted a season? WP:CRYSTAL exists for a reason, and "imminently going to" compete as a pro does not mean he will. Hockey history is peppered with promising 18 year old 4th round draftees who petered out in juniors or college and never approached pro hockey; just to take a random year as example, no fewer than five 4th rounders in the 1998 entry draft never played pro hockey. No doubt his mother was indeed proud to see her boy compete in red, white and blue, but that's a poor reason to have a Wikipedia article. (By the bye, Tan, what led you to claim that Donovan was on a pro roster in the edit summaries?) RGTraynor 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. and RGTraynor. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete also per nom. and RGTraynor. Blackngold29 20:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen non-notable. Can we cross-nominate the others I prodded, that can be found in my contributions? Grsztalk 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because so many !votes had been cast already I put the other two rejected prods up in the following nom. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Karpowich. -Djsasso (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only awards I can find on Donovan are that he twice won defensive player of the week in USHL [10] and I don't think that is noteworthy. I took a quick look at Grsz's other Prod's. The only players I would keep are Mike Murphy (won goaltender of the year in the OHL) and Justin Azevedo (multiple player of the year awards). All others, delete. Patken4 (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not professional, yet: therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. No other valid assertion of notability. ccwaters (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone else above. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FIFA U-15 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per discussion on WikiProject Football talkpage, this article is most likely a hoax, as no evidence of such a competition can be found on the internet. As was said on the mentioned talkpage, the best evidence against existence of such a competition is the list of FIFA-organized competitions 2007-2014, where this competition does not appear. The creator of the page, Aeolopluton (talk · contribs), also doesn't seem like a trustworthy user, based on his/her talk page. And finally, the article was probably created as a result of Venezuela's failed bid for 2011 FIFA U-20 World Cup [11] ARTYOM 17:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ARTYOM 17:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – PeeJay 17:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until/unless firm evidence can be found to prove its existence. Peanut4 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 18:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, and proven evidence that event is likely to be a hoax doktorb wordsdeeds 18:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Scottmsg (talk) 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen — Unreferenced, might be a hoax. macytalk 19:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i couldn't find anything about this Mardetanha talk 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WikiProject Football --T-rex 05:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- World's Finest (fan film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fan film with no notability asserted or possible Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—— It doesn't fall under any of these. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Film is from follow-up to the clearly notable Batman: Dead End. Received independent news coverage from reliable sources [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] at the time of release. Article may need sourcing, but the notability is there - it easily meets several of the points linked above. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar I fail to see which points you think it meets. None of the linlks you provide are reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - on the subject of reliable sources, we will disagree. As to the page linked, under "other sources of notability", point 1 is met (the film caused DC to shut down all superhero fanfilms at the San Diego Comic Con), and point 2 is met, from the contributions of Sandy Collora and Michael O'Hearn.TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sources you cite appear to be fan-published news sites or blogs, and so fail WP:V under WP:SPS. The notability requirements are slightly different. Michael O'Hearn is clearly notable, but for that to be a justification for the inclusion of this film, it would have to a) represent a significant aspect of his career (I doubt this, given the body-building awards and Gladiators appearances). Sandy Collora is of unknown notability; it is certainly asserted, and many big name films are cited. Whether a minor designer is notable is up for question, but as he seems to be largely uncredited on the films listed, the situation is even murkier. What evidence do we have that he was actually involved? If he is not in fact notable, then he can't be used as a justification for this film's inclusion. Your final point was that it fulfills point 1 under "other sources of notability"; your (uncited) assertion concerning DC does not I think represent the kind of 'unique achievement in cinema' the guideline is talking about. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar - on the subject of reliable sources, we will disagree. As to the page linked, under "other sources of notability", point 1 is met (the film caused DC to shut down all superhero fanfilms at the San Diego Comic Con), and point 2 is met, from the contributions of Sandy Collora and Michael O'Hearn.TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar I fail to see which points you think it meets. None of the linlks you provide are reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability is not inherited. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no claim of notability --T-rex 16:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Expand or merge: please resolve on talk page. — MaggotSyn 05:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Manchester Canoe Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable local club, with no references or assertion of notability per WP:N. The lone external link is the club's own site. Though based on what the article states the club is 75 years old, age, especially without outside references, does not grant notability. Hellno2 (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand— The club receives a decent amount of relevant hits from Google, and it being one of the biggest canoe clubs in England makes it notable under this. The only thing this article needs in expansion. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to River Goyt. It's where they operate out of. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand - The club was key to the founding of the British Canoe Union and is still one of the major UK clubs. String-Bean 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by String-bean (talk • contribs)
- Keep. I have put a reference in the article to the club's role in founding the British Canoe Union. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Didn't know it was a founder member of the BCU, but as such is notable. Might need some tweeks as there are a couple of promoy bits but nothing overly POV.--Nate1481(t/c) 11:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Idroscalo Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable local club. Article has no references or assertion of notability. The lone external link is the club's own site. Hellno2 (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable club doktorb wordsdeeds 18:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to the welcoming stub - Idroscalo. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Article deleted by User:Orangemike. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 18:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Summer Name" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable social network site, spamvertising Madcoverboy (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, reads like a marketing add and doesn't really contain any actual content. Twinzor (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy - nothing beyond the ad --T-rex 16:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Should be speedied per db-web - in fact I'll tag it as such. Ros0709 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete — It's an ad, and lacks any notability. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete; consensus is that the topic is notable but much better covered elsewhere. May be editorially redirected. Frankly, semi-random strings such as "could be expand more" are not opinions that I am in the habit of taking seriously at AfD. Sandstein 23:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Appeasement of Hitler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article was a content fork from Appeasement some time ago. Article has sourcing problems, the only cited source is a mass-market "history" book detailing a conspiracy between Hitler and the Tory party. Article has been subject to a long-running edit war between several IP addresses; adding and reverting original research and editorial synthesis (as well as links to Leninist propaganda websites). This subject is already covered at Munich Agreement, German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Lesson of Munich, and Western betrayal so I just don't see the need for this article. Article has had 2 years to get into shape but has consistently failed to do so. L0b0t (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The attempts to appease Hitler were a unique part of world history. I will not discuss them here, as the point of this page is to debate whether or not to keep the article. I am a history major, and I do remember learning about this subject when I was in college. This article only needs necessary improvements to meet Wikipedia standards. Hellno2 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, expand, more citations/references— The article is indeed important, but could use expansion on the reference front. I'm sure this is information on this idea out there. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comment about the appeasement being a unique part of history is spot-on. In no way am I questioning the legitimacy of the topic. Rather, I am positing that the subject is already covered in other articles, please see [17], and that this article has been a mess of dubious sources, original research, editorial synthesis and strange propaganda[18] [19] [20] [21] for 2 years now and sees little hope for improvement. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Appeasement - This could someday be a very good article; AfD is not cleanup. I would rather redirect/merge now than leave this tagged for cleanup indefinately, though - especially if no one has taken the opportunity in two years. --Explodicle (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- HAve you read the Munich Agreement article? Protonk (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. --Explodicle (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Appeasement. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep could be expand more Mardetanha talk 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete No sources that verify the text. This subject (as has been pointed out) is already covered by other articles, meaning that this article is likely to become a POV Fork more than anything else. If someone can tell me ANYTHING that can be added to this article that isn't appropriate (or already in) for the Munich Agreement article, I might change my mind. Protonk (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a source we could use in this article. If you'd like, I can provide some more to better establish notability, as even the nominator agrees to below. I agree that our current organization is fine, but that's reason to redirect, not to delete. --Explodicle (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge It would be better to merge this into an existing article, and get rid of the rubbish that's there. It could always be broken out again if there were enough solid material.JQ (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What would we keep if we merged this with another article on Munich? Protonk (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The brief reference to the Saarland and Rhineland is significant background that doesn't seem to be covered in either the Munich or Appeasement articles. I think Appeasement is the obvious place for a merge JQ (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be VERY surprised if neither the appeasement not the munich article contained a discussion of the cultural motivations/differences between the annexation of the Saarland and the Sudetenland. I'm not saying you are wrong (I haven't checked the articles myself), but if I remember that part (dimly) from high school history, it can't be too obscure. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised myself, but take a look. The Munich Agreement article has a sidebar which includes links to specific Saar and Rhineland articles under a very generic title (Interbellum changes in German borders) and Appeasement has nothing.JQ (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check the first paragraph of the Hitler's demands part, the Alsace-Lorraine article and the Anschluss article. Very well covered. Protonk (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. These articles seem to start in 1938 with the Anschluss. The classic account of appeasement is one which begins, at the earliest, with Hitler's repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles, and suggests that the failure to hold Germany to the terms of the treaty laid the basis for everything that followed. That's not a view shared by most modern historians, but it's certainly the natural starting point for an article on the topic. In this respect, Appeasement of Hitler is better than the others, though that doesn't excuse the rubbish that follows. In any case, the appropriate response to a POV fork like this is usually Merge.JQ (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We may be talking at cross purposes. I'm referring to this section in the Appeasement of Hitler article:
Many people argued that German rearmament, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, and the acquisition of the Saarland were merely examples of the Germans taking back what was rightfully theirs.
- I think I can see where we might be getting mixed up. I'm focusing on the remilitarization of the Rhineland (and related acts seen or externally justified as "returning ethnic germans to the fold"). I guess this sentence itself isn't mentioned in the other articles. the reason I mentioned the articles I linked above was because I felt the operative connection was that of blood, not timing. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An important and well documented part of twentieth century history. The British and Frence sought to appease Hitler at the expense of other countries, thereby strengthening his military machine. Edison (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - most well known appeasement in world history --T-rex 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Please READ the article and the reasons for nomination before voting. We know the topic is notable, that is not what this AfD is about. The topic is already covered, in much greater detail, in other articles. We are not trying to delete the topic, only this specific, poorly written, unsourced, POV dumping ground of an article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic is notable then it shouldn't be deleted. --T-rex 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An article being of poor quality is not reason for deletion. If your main problem is that it's a content fork, then the deletion policy states that a merge or redirect is preferable. --Explodicle (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- C'mon guys (and or gals). Read the article. Then read any article that it might be merged with. Then come up with one sentence from this article that would add to any possible merger target. This article isn't supported by significant sourcing. It doesn't make a single notable claim that isn't already made in another article on the same exact topic. It represents (through the title and probable neglect) an opportunity for POV Forking (as it stands the article is a mild POV fork already). If we already have an article on Picachu and I write a poor, unsourced copy of that article and title it Characters in Pokemon that look like mice with some lightening added which adds nothing to the topic but unverified speculation and implausible claims, then what do we do with it? Merge it into picachu? This shouldn't be a referendum on the notability of the Munich Agreement, but on the notability of the specific claims made in Appeasement of Hitler distinct from what is covered in the Munich Agreement. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't merge any of this stuff either - I just think all notable topics are redirect-worthy. Following your example - there used to be a poor, unsourced article on Thunderbolt Pokémon Attack that survived a deletion attempt and was turned into a redirect. --Explodicle (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Also, I wasn't directing venom at you, specifically, you just happened to be the last comment threaded. :) Protonk (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't merge any of this stuff either - I just think all notable topics are redirect-worthy. Following your example - there used to be a poor, unsourced article on Thunderbolt Pokémon Attack that survived a deletion attempt and was turned into a redirect. --Explodicle (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- C'mon guys (and or gals). Read the article. Then read any article that it might be merged with. Then come up with one sentence from this article that would add to any possible merger target. This article isn't supported by significant sourcing. It doesn't make a single notable claim that isn't already made in another article on the same exact topic. It represents (through the title and probable neglect) an opportunity for POV Forking (as it stands the article is a mild POV fork already). If we already have an article on Picachu and I write a poor, unsourced copy of that article and title it Characters in Pokemon that look like mice with some lightening added which adds nothing to the topic but unverified speculation and implausible claims, then what do we do with it? Merge it into picachu? This shouldn't be a referendum on the notability of the Munich Agreement, but on the notability of the specific claims made in Appeasement of Hitler distinct from what is covered in the Munich Agreement. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with L0b0t. This article needs to be deleted immediately. I don't see a reason why there should be so many articles on this topic. A bit redundant to me.218.186.68.124 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above. Add material summarising/wikilinking the main actions of appeasement in the 1930s to Appeasement. Needless content fork. Jheald (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete as this has been a direct copy from In our Time. Star Garnet (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is at best a fork--not exactly a POV fork, but rather a fork constituting an attempt to write another article, less well written, less accurate, less detailed, and less well-referenced than the ones we already have. Nothing worth merging. DGG (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Too many articles on same topic! Same arguments, what is the use? Delete!Yasis (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with L0b0t and Protonk that there's nothing worth saving here. Maybe a redirect to Appeasement would reduce the danger of this being re-created? JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Echo Star Helstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not-notable. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep— It looked like she played a part, albeit small, in Dylan's life, and that seems notable. Also, the references are legitimate and secondary. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a girlfriend of Bob Dylan in high school. The only claims of notability are suggested conclusions by the editor and not documented. Although I found this source it seems she is still not notable. GtstrickyTalk or C 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Having sex with someone notable does not confer notability like an STD.Yobmod (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After some consideration: Delete. I'm familiar with her, because I've read several Dylan biographies. However, her documentation in such books is a sign of biographers being thorough, not of her inherent notability. It is possible that some notability could attach to an artist's love interest, but in the case of that person being a direct inspiration for a significant work, and/or as a component of the celebrity's public presence. For example, Dylan's later girlfriend Suze Rotolo certainly makes the cut, since her appearance on the cover of The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan made her a figure of national speculation. And Dylan's first wife Sara Dylan claim to fame is not her marriage, but the fact that Dylan publicly credits her as the inspiration for "Sad Eyed Lady of the Lowlands". Echo Star Helstrom belongs to the pre-fame portion of Dylan's life, and aside from giving the occasional interview she has clearly pursed a private, low-key (i.e. non-notable) life.-- P L E A T H E R talk 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Connecticut Gay Men's Chorus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Procedural nomination. This was previously speedily deleted as lacking any assertion of notability (A7) but that deletion was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 18. Submitting for discussion here at AfD. Shereth 16:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as... well, as a mess really! The article needs substantial formatting and copyediting - that alone is not a valid reason to delete, I know, but when combined with the fact that the article is completely unreferenced, making any assertations of notability meaningless (not that I could see any assertations of notability) it makes me think that Wikipedia wouldn't really suffer without the inclusion of this article! :-) -- JediLofty UserTalk 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Research pulls up very little to confirm notability. Keep I stand corrected, as per research findings cited below. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. [22] [23] --Michael WhiteT·C 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and format — As said above, the article gets reliable hits, and said earlier, it needs formatting. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I have added some sources and links to the article to establish this and done a little bit of wikifying. It needs a lot of clean up and pruning but does appear to be a notable topic so we should have an article on them. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability seems to have been addressed, leaving only cleanup issues. MrPrada (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per cleanup, sourcing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or source - in its current form, blatantly fails verifibility tests: the current "sourcing" is for things like a "what to do in CT this weekend" guide listing in the NY Times, plus a boatload of unsourced claims. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not all the coverage is "what to do". This is quite a lengthy piece about them in the New York Times, as is this one in the New Haven Register. (I have a subscription to Highbeam research.) Yes the article needs work, more citations and better formatting, but that's not a valid reason to delete it. And to say it blatantly fails WP:V is quite an exaggeration as are several of the {{Citation needed}} tags which have been added.Voceditenore (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, noting an inclusionist trend as to places and buildings, suggest an editorial merge nonetheless. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kehilat Chovevei Tzion - Church Street Synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This synagogue is quite new, and generally does not have much notability at all. --Eliyak T·C 15:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 15:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Many places of worship are notable. I am not familiar with this one in particular, but it sounds like from the article there was some story behind it. It could probably be sourced from some newspaper in the area. Hellno2 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — A 4 million dollar fundraiser seems notable, and to echo Hellno2, there is probably some relevance from small newspapers and such. But, I advocate a change of title; that title is long, hard to spell, and could be shortened. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the wp:org notability standard. We can't have an article on every single synagogue, church, and mosque. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Merge into Skokie, Illinois#Demographics.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but this synagogue is noted in quite a few sources, not all Chicagoan.[24] [25][26]. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The links provided seem to be Chicago based. They're also not secondary or reliable - a wp:org notability prerequisite. I also don't see how the provided links show that this synagogue is more notable then other synagogues, churches, and mosques, that have recieved some local newsletter coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brewcrewer: You use an illogical and unfactual argument when you say that "We can't have an article on every single synagogue, church, and mosque" simply because the Jewish population (at about 13 million) of the world population (over six billion and counting) is extremely tiny, while there are almost 2 BILLION Christians in the world and about one and a half BILLION Muslims in the world and Jews do not have, neither in numbers nor in proportions, that many synagogues compared to either Churches or Mosques. So while I cannot speak so much about Churches and Mosques, it is accurate to say that an active synagogue is essentialy the heart and life of a living, dynamic and notable Jewish community and to delete articles about synagogues rather than finding better solutions, like the ones I suggest below, to perhaps create and merge this into History of the Jews in Chicago, and not to lose the information started here. There is no other way to measure the presence and religious life of Jews in any place. IZAK (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that unlike churhes and mosques, all synagogues are notable. There's no such exception in WP:ORG. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brewcrewer: No I am not saying what you allege I am saying. What I am saying is that synagogues, by definition, are the embodiments of both Jews and Judaism in any place that they are found, and that while I agree that some synagogues may not be notable by Wikipedia standards (that have changed over the years and will no doubt keep changing with time) any editor concerned with Judaic topics should be sensitive to a broader perspective and need that Wikipedia has so that a way be found that the information that reaches Wikipedia about synagogues in particular (I am not concerned about other institutions and happenings so much) are not lost and should get incorporated into other related articles, such as "History of the Jews in ____" type articles and related topics, in this case Skokie, Illinois (perhaps over time there will be an article about Synagogues in Skokie, Illinois -- think forward and creatively here), because of their importance to the Jewish communities and their histories. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This thesis - that unlike churches in relation to Christianity and mosques in relation to Islam, "synagogues, by definition, are the embodiments of both Jews and Judaism" and are "essentialy the heart and life of a living, dynamic and notable Jewish community" - is questionable. I find it hard to believe that a non-Orthodox synagogue that is attended only a few times a year is more connected to its Jewish community than a mosque, that can be attended five times a day, is to its Muslim community.
- Additionally, I can't find any historical basis for this idea that synagogue articles are used as building-blocks. Neither History of the Jews in Cincinnati(first version), nor History of the Jews in Dallas, Texas(first version), nor History of the Jews in Omaha, Nebraska (first version), seem to have been created form any sort of merger of synagogue articles.
- But putting the merits of your assertions aside, the issue here should be whether the keep !vote is in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's no exception in WP:ORG for unnotable organizations that can potentially be used as "building-blocks" for future notable articles. Indeed, if there was such an exception, it would, for all practical purposes, void the whole wp:org notability guideline. Every unnotable organization should be kept because they can be used a building-block for a future notable article. Consequently, an article about the Slovakian Transsexuals of Rhode Island Organization should be kept because it can be used later for a more notable article about Eastern-European transsexuals or Slovakians in New England. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brewcrewer: The cases you cite from "History of..." articles proves nothing because those articles are bare-bones articles that have a long way to go before they become comprehensive, and reliable, histories. Your other point that: "There's no exception in WP:ORG for unnotable organizations that can potentially be used as "building-blocks" for future notable articles" is also way off, because there are exceptions, and they take other forms, such as merging articles into other articles, or seeking some input from another editor who may have an interest in this and could find a way to improve the articles, or simply by geting in touch with editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM and getting some discussion going, because eliminating articles about synagogues can become sticky. Also remember that not always do the rules of Wikipedia help, such as when one uses WP:LAWYER to judge and throw things out by WP standards when there other possible solutions. Finally, whether Jews are secular or religious makes no difference, because historically, Jews in their history since the destruction of the Second Temple, it was the synagogues that arose as the centers of Jewish life literally like "portable temples" as the Jews wandered in their 2,000 year long exile and it was the only insititution that can be found continuously without change, so that when looking at any synagogue, one must be cautious about the fact that it's not just part of Jewish history because it is Jewish history in the raw. That is why I go out on a limb when it comes to articles about synagogues, that there needs to be greater caution in dealing with them, which is not unreasonable. IZAK (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brewcrewer: No I am not saying what you allege I am saying. What I am saying is that synagogues, by definition, are the embodiments of both Jews and Judaism in any place that they are found, and that while I agree that some synagogues may not be notable by Wikipedia standards (that have changed over the years and will no doubt keep changing with time) any editor concerned with Judaic topics should be sensitive to a broader perspective and need that Wikipedia has so that a way be found that the information that reaches Wikipedia about synagogues in particular (I am not concerned about other institutions and happenings so much) are not lost and should get incorporated into other related articles, such as "History of the Jews in ____" type articles and related topics, in this case Skokie, Illinois (perhaps over time there will be an article about Synagogues in Skokie, Illinois -- think forward and creatively here), because of their importance to the Jewish communities and their histories. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that unlike churhes and mosques, all synagogues are notable. There's no such exception in WP:ORG. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 09:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Brewcrewer: You use an illogical and unfactual argument when you say that "We can't have an article on every single synagogue, church, and mosque" simply because the Jewish population (at about 13 million) of the world population (over six billion and counting) is extremely tiny, while there are almost 2 BILLION Christians in the world and about one and a half BILLION Muslims in the world and Jews do not have, neither in numbers nor in proportions, that many synagogues compared to either Churches or Mosques. So while I cannot speak so much about Churches and Mosques, it is accurate to say that an active synagogue is essentialy the heart and life of a living, dynamic and notable Jewish community and to delete articles about synagogues rather than finding better solutions, like the ones I suggest below, to perhaps create and merge this into History of the Jews in Chicago, and not to lose the information started here. There is no other way to measure the presence and religious life of Jews in any place. IZAK (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The links provided seem to be Chicago based. They're also not secondary or reliable - a wp:org notability prerequisite. I also don't see how the provided links show that this synagogue is more notable then other synagogues, churches, and mosques, that have recieved some local newsletter coverage. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true, but this synagogue is noted in quite a few sources, not all Chicagoan.[24] [25][26]. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A subject doesn't have to be famous or important to be notable,. according to WP:N notability just says that enough reliable sources need to exist to support and verify an encyclopedia article. Right now there's only one source cited; more sources are needed to meet even this standard. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure where exactly you're getting this from. I know it's not from a dictionary, because I have yet to find one that translates "notable" as "established with reliable sources." Wikipedia's notability policy is that coverage in reliable sources is evidence of notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- General notability guideline. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The guideline goes on to point out that this presumption is rebuttable, but it has to be rebutted by policy, not because an editor doesn't like it. The notability policy makes "Notability" something of a term of art, with a somewhat specialized meaning different from the general dictionary one. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Whatever the disagreements about notability standards, there unfortunately doesn't seem to be enough sourced material here to meet any of them. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One needs to have a somewhat broader perspective of the issues here. So far, there are relatively few articles about various Jewish communities and their histories in the United States (see Category:Jews and Judaism in the United States by city and Category:Jewish American history by place) and articles such as these are needed as building blocks for those editors concerned about building that up, rather than deleting important building blocks. In addition, because Skokie is one of the biggest centers of Jews in the greater Chicago area as well as a political flashpoint, see Skokie, Illinois#NSPA Controversy, and this is a major active synagogue in the heart of that live and active Jewish community so that it has automatic notability. How else does one measure or write about Jews (an extremely small ethnic and religious group in the USA) and Judaism (a religion practiced by only a tiny group of people in th USA) in any area if not by writing about its synagogues? It make no sense to write about ancient but long deserted synagogues but delete newer but fully active ones. Therefore the information here must be preserved somehow and if it cannot stand alone then perhaps merge it the Skokie, Illinois article, or create and start an article about History of the Jews in Chicago (see History of the Jews in Cincinnati, History of the Jews in Dallas, Texas, History of the Jews in Omaha, Nebraska as examples) with this article merged into that. IZAK (talk) 07:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Skokie,_Illinois#Demographics as per Wikipedia:Places of local interest, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities/Guideline#Demographics. It is fully appropriate to have a section in any community article on the religious community and that community's main places of gathering. Where things go wrong is when people start stand alone articles too soon. Ths particular article would be an orphan and would be rarely read due to the awkward title. If mentioned within the context of its own community within the context of the larger community where it finds itself it would be read by more people. If at some point in the future the amount of information on Kehilat Chovevei Tzion becomes too large to be contained within the parent Skokie article, it could then be broken out in summary style to its own stand alone article. This is the appropriate and sensible process we have discovered by consensus over the years works best. It is usually more appropriate when discovering an orphan article on a minor place of interest to be bold and do the merge (as per WP:Product) and only bring the mater to AfD if the merge is contested. SilkTork *YES! 10:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed! IZAK (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael J Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bringing to AfD after my speedy nomination was contested. The article does not assert any notability, and has no sources. -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. Zero good g-hits other than Wikipedia and his website. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. --Killerofcruft (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7. --EEMIV (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Utterly non-notable per WP:BIO. Should have been speedied, and should be removed now per WP:SNOW. Qworty (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Cenarium Talk 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Body service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Per WP:DICTIONARY. Millbrooky (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect – At first glance I was going to say delete. However, after reviewing the article, and than looking at the main piece BDSM I have to say a category of “terms” would be informational and helpful. Let’s start it off with this one. ShoesssS Talk 18:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 14:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no references, no claim to be notable --T-rex 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:DICT, meaning that this is just a slang translation. The common person would think body service means auto body repair. More appropriate for Urban Dictionary or something to that nature.--Finalnight (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vintropedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BK. No source in google search [27],[28], [29]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, per WP:SPEEDY#G4 (Recreation of deleted material). -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete also protect the article name from re-creation. The user has a single purpose account solely for promoting a (self-published?) book. --Madchester (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as this needs to be put to bed. G4 does not apply, since the article was speedied (full disclosure - by me) under G7 when the author blanked the page. My comments from the first AFD (an hour ago!) still stand, though - in the absence of sources that establish notability per policy, the article should be deleted. Being the most comprehensive guide in a field is a good claim of notability, albiet a minor one; we need an independent source that confirms this, and my searches are coming up empty. I note also that the book is scheduled for publication on 8 July of this year, bringing WP:CRYSTAL into consideration. No ISBN has been issued, which indicates that the book is not a major publication (otherwise, it'd have an ISBN when it's this close to publication). The publisher, LuLu Press, appears to be a self-publishing house, so that's another indication of a lack of notability. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, per WP:SPEEDY#G4. --Explodicle (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it fails WP:BK and is unverifiable due to lack of sources. Google search finds only one non-Wikipedia result, which is a page on Facebook and not a reliable source. --Snigbrook (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BK#Not yet published books. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A note was put on the article itself by an anon IP, which I removed and moved to the talk page. However, since this is really the intended audience, I'll post it here as well. "NOTES TO WIKI-STAFF: There are some issues with speed deletion on this page being flagged, i'm attempting to fix any concerns you have over this page. Please bear with me. Google sources - Keep watching, they'll be coming within the next few days. ISBN number - will post up once it has been announced." gnfnrf (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Delete. I don't normally believe in the google test, but for a computer related subject, 5 ghits, only 1 independent of wikipedia, is pretty damning. gnfnrf (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted per G7; Author request. I'll continue to engage the author. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vintropedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, in the absence of sources that establish notability per policy. Being the most comprehensive guide is a good calim of notability, albiet a minor one; we need an independent source that confirms this, and my searches are coming up empty. I note also that the book is scheduled for publication on 8 July of this year, bringing WP:CRYSTAL into consideration. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prophecies in Percy Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A problem of notability. The prophecies are not important enough to have their own article. The prophecies should be added to the book articles themselves. Gears Of War 14:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doesn't anyone know the meaning of the word "merge"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and unreferenced. -- JediLofty UserTalk 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nominator's concerns. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Per nom and 10PH. Shapiros10 contact meMy work 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - zero out of universe notability --T-rex 16:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as hoax. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mutt Williams and the Fertility Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails future film notability guideline. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Come on. Fails WP:NFF and current movie just came out a month ago. I doubt any word of spin-offs or sequels has been released. TN‑X-Man 14:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this WP:CRYSTAL BALLery now!!! :-) There are no references and no real verification that this is anything other than a fan's fantasy. -- JediLofty UserTalk 16:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete My olfactory detects a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete unsourced hoax. --Killerofcruft (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 02:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Soweto slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a slang directory, unverifiable, apparent original research. Deprodded. Accurizer (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Soweto life is essentially the same content, presently tagged for prod. Accurizer (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. tgies (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and the prod'ed one if this ends up as a delete. --Herby talk thyme 08:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was The result was keep, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Serbian-Greek relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Essay arguing for a historic alliance between Greece and Serbia. Not our business. I would consent to userification, since some of the assertions of fact may be worth salvaging. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well referenced and notable but I have renamed it appropriately to fit into those "Foreign relations of..." articles.--Avala (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong deleteas nominator. This tells only one side of Greco-Serbian relations, and argues for a natural union as fellow Orthodox states. As such, it omits the long history of conflicting claims between the two countries, including the controversies over their repective claims to Macedonia and Albania. An essay, not an encyclopedia article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Just because you think the article lacks some content it doesn't mean it should be deleted. That is what Wikipedia is all about - add the content you think it needs don't destroy the existing. For an example Argentina-Colombia relations tell us very little but the article is still here waiting for expansion not deletion.--Avala (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also either back up your claims that the article is telling only one side of the story and put into the article or don't make such claims at all as we don't need your personal view if the article is good or not - we need references for such claims.--Avala (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck the !vote, because as nominator it's already assumed you endorse deletion. I normally don't bother to do this, but I want it to be clear at a glance to any passing administrator that the only non-keep vote so far is the nom. No offense, just trying to streamline the process :) --Jaysweet (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you think the article lacks some content it doesn't mean it should be deleted. That is what Wikipedia is all about - add the content you think it needs don't destroy the existing. For an example Argentina-Colombia relations tell us very little but the article is still here waiting for expansion not deletion.--Avala (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am no expert on Serbian-Greek relations, but there seem to be a lot of Serbian-Greek relations. AfD is not to answer whether the article as currently written represents all viewpoints, but whether the existence of such an article is appropriate. I think the answer to the latter question is a resounding "yes". If there are WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE problems with the article, fix them! --Jaysweet (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable, well sourced topic --T-rex 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article is quite salvageable, and errors of commission or omission can be addressed through editing, not deletion. Biruitorul Talk 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - I have zero knowledge on the relationship between the two country, but the article is well sourced. I think the article is no business of the nominator, but do matter to others. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep AfD is not for cleanup. – sgeureka t•c 17:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep —— Why is this even here? It is notable, albeit biased, but it can be fixed. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fragile (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable first film by a non-notable and just deleted at AfD filmmaker. Article substantially edited by the now username-blocked production company. There is nothing under Frederic Lean (current name) and the past name shows existence, not notability. With regard to the dubious Cannes-related claim to notability what it actually was is "Fragile" was part of the official selection at the "SHORT FILM CORNER"- CANNES FILM FESTIVAL 2006. per the production company's website and no other reliable sources. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless a reliable source can be found to confirm the Cannes award. -- JediLofty UserTalk 16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No sources found, but Cannes Award suggests notability --T-rex 16:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar this is true... if the film actually won such an award. I have so far failed to find any reliable source that actually mentions this film in connection with Cannes. -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment same here, it appears to have been discussed at Cannes but not even the production company's website goes so far as to say it actually won any award. It appears to be a case of name dropping in hope to establish notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 12:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar this is true... if the film actually won such an award. I have so far failed to find any reliable source that actually mentions this film in connection with Cannes. -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail WP:Film. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If there is no Cannes award, then it is not notable. This article came from WP:AFC. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I checked IMDB and Cannes Short Film Corner. The film was in the "official selection of the short film corner". It doesn't mean they won an award. Fragile was selected in the official selection in that category. Even the company expressed it in those terms. They never claimed they won an award for Fragile at Cannes-just officially selected in the Short Film Corner competition . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.255.240.2 (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cooraclare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is pure nonsense Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody has cleaned it up leaving very little - but it doesn't require deletion anymore. Can I withdraw an AfD? Sarah777 (talk) 17:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep mild keep. I have rewritten for grammar and style. docboat (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: by long consensus, named geographical locations fall within a per se rule. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per nominator withdrawal. Additionally, I don't think anyone will disagree with Smerdis of Tlön's point above; named geographical locations are inherently notable (as long as they aren't hoaxes, which a Google search rules out in this case). AnturiaethwrTalk 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dude 'n' Nem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This rap duo is not yet notable. They have not released any albums,and it is unknown when their 1st album will be released. Also,neither of their 2 singles have charted. So,I don't believe that they are notable enough for an article. So the article should be deleted. ILikeMusicaLot (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Absolutely no notability asserted. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Didn't catch that. No notability outside the marginal soundtrack. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse speedy delete under A7 as above. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I don't think A7 applies, since they claim notability by being on the soundtrack for Need for Speed: ProStreet, which is confirmed by a source (EA Details Soundtrack, Junkie XL Score for "Need for Speed ProStreet"). So, there might be a sliver of notability - but not enough for an article, I think, in the absence of other sources about the band itself (and not a single song on a single, barely-notable soundtrack). Even if we find notability, a clean slate on this article might be worthwhile. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no album yet Mardetanha talk 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jersey_Community_High_School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. Other article types are not eligible for deletion by this criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellivyesrej (talk • contribs) 2008/06/23 03:54:26
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well written High School article. Could use a couple secondary sources added, but i'm sure they're out there. They always are for HS's. (Also a little confused with the deletion reason. It's just the A7 policy quoted, which doesn't apply to high schools.)--Cube lurker (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as article needs expansion and better sourcing, true, but those are not issues for an AfD. High schools are inherently notable, per precedent, and this one serves 1100 students so notability is clearly established. The deletion rationale is confusing and off-point to boot. - Dravecky (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up: Nominator's only three edits are the AfD nomination tag on the article, the note above, and a bit of swiftly reverted vandalism to the Jerseyville, Illinois article to add "and one of the most promiscuous high school students on record" to the biography of a living person. As such, this appears to be a single-purpose account whose sole intent is vandalism and disruption. - Dravecky (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per standing practice on American high schools. Townlake (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - enrollment of approximately 1,100 high school students is a claim to notability --T-rex 05:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - significant high school with sufficient sources available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a high school and many of the high school sites here don't mention much about their importance. It will probably be created in the future so deletion makes no sense. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, truly not needed, this content is/can be handled in puppet for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- List of puppets and puppet shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is a essentially a series of lists that are duplicated in the generic articles of higher standard, in particular 'Puppet' Bob (talk) 10:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the few notable shows can be merged into Puppet --T-rex 16:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Puppet, which covers the same ground in a better way, but without prejudice to recreation per WP:SS later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyJones (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, noting that Wikipedia policy about criminal notability may be lacking in clarity. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mechele_Linehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
Strong delete: Despite all the press it got, Linehan is just one person with an unremarkable past (in the historical sense) who has been convicted of murder. Likewise, the victim in the case is not remarkable in any historical way. Are we going to search newspapers and documentary archives for similiar cases and profile them all? Despite being an admittedly widely reported trial, what is the historical significance? Neither the defendant nor the victim were famous or otherwise remarkable before the trial. There have been lots of high profile murder cases in Alaska and beyond, ie., Bonnie Craig's murder, etc. I'm sorry but making CNN and 60 Minutes does not make it worthy of an article. Michaelh2001 (talk) 06:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed with nominator. A fairly ordinary crime with widespread publicity. If the case can be made that case law was changed, or public action affected by this case, then a mild "keep" might result. docboat (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - cites indicate it was fairly high-profile; appeals may add to notoriety. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems like a WP:BIO1E case to me. There is no coverage of anything but her criminal case. No other notable issues are attached to this. Excessive media attention isn't a reason to keep.--Finalnight (talk) 05:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete all, per WP:MUSIC#Songs. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Murmaider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable songs. Not released as singles. No cites.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
- Hatredcopter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bloodrocuted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tenacious D Fan (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, articles fail to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescuers assisting Jews during the Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I'm concerned that this article/list makes too subjective a determination in choosing examples of people who fit the bill of "rescuers assisting Jews during the Holocaust". The first three-fourths of the article (at least the daughter article links) is more objective, because we can objectively determine who received the Righteous Among the Nations recognition. However, in as much as the article does that, it is repetitive with List of Righteous among the Nations by country. The portion of the article that is not repetitive with that list, has no objective criterion. As you can see on the talk page and article history, inclusion is often a source of dispute. To use the example of two featured articles (Joel Brand and Pope Pius XII) the nature of someone's actions during the holocaust can be a controversial subject, as can their classification as "rescuer". Thus, Wikipedia should not be in the business of creating such lists from scratch; only reporting the lists of others. As was pointed out in the similar (successful) deletion debate for Category:People who helped Jews during the Holocaust, this is too much like a category for someone who deserved an Oscar but didn't get it. Savidan 02:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article may be better off as "List of . . ." But this is still a valid topic, an important part of world history. And the people mentioned in this article are notable. Hellno2 (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not dispute the notability of the people or the need for such a list. Such a list already exists, as do the bios; it's this additional combination that I object to as original research. Savidan 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep — The article needs a new name though, and to echo Hellno2 again, a "List of..." is a good idea. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, needs a better title. The current one is CLUMSY.Galassi (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this serious topic well sourced. IZAK (talk) 06:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep, the title is already changed for the better.Lute88 (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, G12 copyvio. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Safi_Connection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
The text of the article is precisely the same as the one found at the link http://www.safi-connection.net/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia which is the the artists' page. It´s another cut and paste situation... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catuireal (talk • contribs) 2008/06/22 23:08:19
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep as withdrawn. Discussion pertaining to merging or redirecting can conclude on articles talk page. — MaggotSyn 11:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sausage bun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested redirect to Hot dog. Non-notable variant of the American Hot dog the contents of which can be said in one line in said article. Nothing notable about its "Chineseness" either except its lack of sources. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason why Pigs in a blanket is not nominated for deletion, but the Sausage bun is. Also this it is quite "Anglo" to classify all similar food under the American umbrella. That is not how Wikiproject food functions. What next??? Every dish that uses salt should be in the same article. Benjwong (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - This is a quite distinct Cantonese food item and the proposer does not properly make his/her case for deletion of this article. Badagnani (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe I could have had this speedied. There is not that much distinctive about this item, and furthermore no assertion of notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ok this is a complete contradiction. How can the same person claim this food has no notability, yet also claim it is basically the same as American hot dog. Either "both are notable" or "both are nothing". Otherwise you are making the claim that somehow the Chinese-version sausage bun is nothing, and the American-version hotdog is everything. Believe me, if it was 90% identical to its western counterpart, it would have moved to the western food page. See swiss roll for example. Benjwong (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not going to carry on filibustering, but at the risk of sounding repetitive, there is noting 'substantially different' about the topic, and your article fails to make a case for it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a distinctive food, found widely in Hong Kong. The article is not particularly well written, granted, but the subject deserves a place. docboat (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to hot dog as a Chinese variant. DCEdwards1966 16:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - That kind of bun is widely sold in South Korean and Japan, not to mention of US and any Europe. I don't think the bun is indigenous or distinctive only to Hong Kong and its bakery technique started spread to East Asia. If it used "Chinese sausage", that would be the only uniqueness. Well, then redirect to pigs in a blanket with a brief description on the variant.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't want to be a bring down here, but regardless of how distinct the food item may be, the article has literally no citations or sources of any kind. As it stands, notability and verifibility have not been established, and irrespective of any anecdotal evidence provided in the discussion, regardless of how true it may be, without reliable sources the article cannot stand.Calgary (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop the vote We need to resolve the "Ohconfucius"/Chinese food problems before continuing with these AfDs. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - although i think this stub should be part of a larger article on dim sum, it is at least notable enough to exist on Wikipedia as it is a cultural significant dish.--Chef Tanner (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw In response to Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV)'s suggestion, and as a gesture of goodwill, I would withdraw this nomination. I would ask the creator and other staunch defender(s) of the article to please fix the problems of the article, instead of indulging in character assassination to defend the article. Looking back, I guess I could have been more communicative. Nevertheless, I really object to being portrayed as the bogeyman and philistine in this. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't you try to fix it as well? SashaNein (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep as withdrawn. — MaggotSyn 11:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikolai Markovitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable sources. Author's only other contribution was a fairly blatant hoax, so this is probably one as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn A few sources were dug up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY#G3. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, following the unearthing of new sources! -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure if G3 applies, but certainly the content is not verifiable. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep The russian language reference does indeed speak of an "academik" of that name, and he did appear notable as a member of the central committee. Hold on for the reference to be checked. Name of title needs to be changed to include "Emmanuel". docboat (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This entry exists in ru.wiki. The proper name would be Nikolai Markovich Emanuel (name patronymic surname). Unfortunately my Russian is not good enough to follow to the pages of science institutions for final verification. Russian speaking coworker did short research, this name appears in online version of some science encyclopedia. Seems valid. Updated references in main article, looks like he received some state award or other for his work. -- Muczachan (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Should be moved to Nikolai Markovich Emanuel for the start (is my WP:RUS OK?). Here are a couple of English-language sources: [30] Fairly thorough obituary. I'll add the references to the article. 147.91.1.41 (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep — The references are legit, and although I can't read very much Russian, the first reference does state that he did some pretty big stuff in chemistry. The second reference is in English, and plainly states his notability. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted per WP:SNOWBALL. —Angr 16:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbelese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Made up language with no references. Clearly WP:THINGSMADEUPAFTERSCHOOLONEDAY. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 12:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clear nonsense/made-up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MADEUP. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MADEUP. as above. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. docboat (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Hoax, G1. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete idiocy. JuJube (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nice to have an easy one once in awhile. Speedy delete if possible. --Lockley (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G3 - Hoax. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikolai Vasilievitch Onovalov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sprung into existence in March. Used for promotion opf anti-hangover specific on Polish market. Article already deleted in Polish Wikipedia. Muczachan (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Obvious hoax. "fake page - same owner as next link" says it all. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:SPEEDY#G3. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was I'm not sure the sourcing is sufficient, so I'll close this as no consensus, default keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MINT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Potentially notable subject, but the article doesn't ASSERT this notability, and I can find no sources, other than those on commercial site or business directories to cite in an attempt to get some assertion of notability into the article -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For anyone that wants to do cleanup, here's a bunch of news articles that involve the subject in some shape or form. I can't vote one way or the other, but the nom seems to be asking for cleanup, which isn't appropriate for AFD. SashaNein (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Mint Financial Services is an unrelated organisation. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Am I asking for cleanup? As far as I understand the rules, an article has to assert the notability of the subject (which this doesn't) and has to cite reliable sources (which this doesn't) otherwise it faces potential deletion. That's why I brought it here. :-) -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've now put some references into the article to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the sources found by Phil Bridger are sufficient to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, owing to not a single comment asking to keep along with not enough meaningful content to merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrexham & Shropshire Route (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This route is nothing in its own right, it is the route that Wrexham and Shropshire operate services on and nothing more. As such if this content is to be included then it should be in the article of the TOC not in its own article. Adambro (talk) 11:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - all info can be included and the RDT can easily be incorporated as its own template just to the Wrexham & Shropshire article although why do we need two? Simply south (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: needless duplication of content. As this company has just one route, any information about it can be described quite adequately in the Wrexham & Shropshire article. No need for a redirect as this is an unlikely search term. --RFBailey (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsourced speculation/OR about the route a train company takes. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 19:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge As stated above, all the content can be combined with the Wrexham and Shropshire article. Olana North (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above, though most of this is already included on the company page, so it almost verges on a delete.--Fuelboy (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge though there is not much to transfer in the merger. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Wrexham and Shropshire article already has a route map which, IMO, is detailed enough hence there's nothing to merge into it. The presence of a route map in that article also makes this one redundant, hence delete. Dpmuk (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, Article fails the notability guidelines due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Aegis (online game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claims of notability, fails WP:WEB, no citations from reliable, third-party, published sources, past (and likely future) copyright violations due to publisher being involved with editing. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Written like an advertisement; no NPOV, no verifiable sources. MuZemike (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do NOT delete - this article was useful to me, and most likely is and will be to others wikipedians as well. In my view, this is the essence of Wikipedia. Ryttaren (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, an article simply being useful doesn't justify its existence. Remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately? Dear Wyatt, we make the rules. If you disagree with one of the many guide-lines you like to quote, be bold and ignore it. Remember that the main purpose of Wikipedia is being useful for readers. In this particular case however, there's no need to ignore or change any rules: "WP:NOT/indiscr. collection of inf." consists of 5 no-nos (FAQ, Plot summaries, Lyrics dbs, News reports); the article under discussion doesn't belong to any of this. Kind regards Ryttaren (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your first, second and third argument is one and the same.
- Past violations is by no means a reason to delete a current, non-violating article. If it were, a vandal could insert copyrighted material on any and all articles he wanted removed.
- Likely future violation??? Well now, this is notable indeed, let's create an article.Ryttaren (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally consider claims of notability and actual notability to be separate issues (you can have one without the other), as is a lack of citations from reliable sources. I also mentioned the copyright violations because it appears that the publisher is encouraging some users (employees maybe?) to violate Wikipedia policy regarding copyrights going back to the very first incarnation of this article, and because advertisement and copyright infringement are valid reasons for deletion. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, claim and actual nb are different, I wasn't aware that both are part of the "guideline" language. Past and "likely future" violations should not be part of any assesment criterion however. If they were, we might as well mark all articles for deletion, since it's likely that someone, somewhere, sometime has or will make any or all articles in violation with some past, present or future "guideline". Best Ryttaren (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally consider claims of notability and actual notability to be separate issues (you can have one without the other), as is a lack of citations from reliable sources. I also mentioned the copyright violations because it appears that the publisher is encouraging some users (employees maybe?) to violate Wikipedia policy regarding copyrights going back to the very first incarnation of this article, and because advertisement and copyright infringement are valid reasons for deletion. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - advert, unverifiable. andy (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - It's an advert for the game, with no notability established, and lacks verifiability. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. I looked and could find no independent sourcing for the subject.--Finalnight (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's great you looked. Lack of independent sourcing is not a WP:ADS issue, however. The article is clearly not blatant spam. If you think it's written like an advertisment, please consider cleaning it up, or tagging it with {{Cleanup-spam}}. Kind regards Ryttaren (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know about my typo, its fixed now. To further my delete position, note that WP:NOTADVERTISING is based off WP:CORP which as the following criteria:
- A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content.
- Thanks for letting me know about my typo, its fixed now. To further my delete position, note that WP:NOTADVERTISING is based off WP:CORP which as the following criteria:
- The "secondary sources" in the criterion include reliable published works in all forms, such as (for example) newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[1] except for the following:
- Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people.[2] Material that is self-published, or published at the direction of the subject of the article, would be a primary source and falls under different policies.
- Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories.
- So the sources issue does matter. Also, I am strongly starting to suspect some form of sockpuppetry was involved with the creation and work done on this article. A series of accounts and ip's have worked on this article that have not had any other significant contributions to wikipedia. One edit in particular asked what "we" should do to fix the article. I wonder if we should request a checkuser for sockpuppetry.--Finalnight (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fails WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Federated Management Architecture Specification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a major stub but I think it might be notable based on these ghits. It's got a few articles and it's in a couple books. Certainly not like many other articles I come across on AfD that have zero reliable references. But I'm unsure if it actually meets WP:N. Faradayplank (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a hard one, among other things because the topic is so obscure. Not convinced this deserves an article. Not even sure it exists anymore. Seems to be part of Jiro, which has now apparently been rolled into Jini, except there's no mention of either on the Jini website, which makes me think this is rather dead, and probably never very live to begin with. On the other hand, it does have a JSR. From a quick glance, I think its some Java standard for managing SANs. And yet, I don't see any evidence that anyone has ever implemented JSR 9... So I'd veer in the delete direction. --SJK (talk) 14:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- James Kovas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully professional league (I have asked for, but not recieved any proof that the New South Wales Premier League is fully professional). Was originally prodded, but removed by article's creator without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE. iced kola(Mmm...) 23:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Fanclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Seemingly non-notable group. Prod removed by anon without comment or alteration. tomasz. 09:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Near impossible name to google for, well, at least I tried. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's how I try, in Google News archives: attempt #1 and attempt #2. Löschen unless sources are found prior to the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much what I got too, but I managed to find one for people who were fans of Bournemouth. Close, but no banana. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's how I try, in Google News archives: attempt #1 and attempt #2. Löschen unless sources are found prior to the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources found to establish notability.--Finalnight (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Familiar Men: A Book of Nudes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, poorly written. docboat (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I've added a link to the SF Chron article, but this was the only whiff of notability I could find in a gsearch.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All I've got is this "http://books.google.com/books?id=fcM9ULWBTDsC&pg=PR21&dq=%22Familiar+Men:+A+Book+of+Nudes&sig=ACfU3U2UmeXJzVsA05hB_iGkHqNobn54VA" which adds just a little tiny bit. Hobit (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Note that WP:WAX is not a reason to keep. — MaggotSyn 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Madonna as gay icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A non-notable, trivia filled list of gay people Madonna has met/associated with. Anything of use can be placed in the main article. The article name is a bit arbitrary as well. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See Judy Garland as gay icon as to where this can go. There are many sources and content to support the article it just isn't written exceptionally well as of yet but AfD is not clean-up. Here's a few books, for example, and a few other sources that could help. The "gay icon" label has been applied to many people but very few wikipedia articles devoted exclusively to individuals. This would be a good exception and an obvious split from the main article not something to be added to it. I notice the main article - already split a few times - is presently at 88 kilobytes long. Banjeboi 09:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The third one is Janet Jackson as gay icon. Banjeboi 19:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article content obviously needs improvement in places and stronger citing in places, but the subject is valid and Madonna is famous and culturally influential enough for this to warrant being an individual article. Banjeboi's demonstration of high-quality sources for this subject clearly shows that the article can be improved, but for sure it won't be if it is deleted. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. I'm not a fan of labelling people as "gay icons" just because gay people happen to like them, but as with Garland, for whatever reason Madonna has become adopted by that demographic (and she herself has cultivated the relationship), so the topic is viable. The article has also been "Flagged for rescue" suggesting that interest exists in improving it. Of course needs to be policed for WP:BLP but I don't see a problem with having this article, but it needs improving, is all. 23skidoo (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The one for Janet Jackson is currently nominated for GA, I believe this article has great potential aswell therefore. Additionally the information needed branching out from the main article which is huge. — Realist2 (Who's Bad?) 19:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep if there were one performer that was considered a gay icon its her, and if her article weren't so long it would be there but its worth noting, its cited in the media very often and its likely someone would research this.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Keep bad faith nom and it's no secret that Madonna is a gay icon. 71.195.144.222 (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted G11, blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Hammond (author/speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Has been speedily deleted twice. I am offering the author an AfD to assure them that the gerenral view is that this guy is not notable and that his article is essentially an advert for him and his book. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} oder {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Delete per Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING. Article seems to be promotional rather than encyclopedic. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have stubbed the article to remove the advertising nonsense, but there is no assertion of notability even with the spam. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable figure. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed, non-notable and advertising. docboat (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has been rewritten in encyclopedic format. --Jkorbes (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is evidence that the subject is notable subject is notable. --82.158.118.243 (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — 82.158.118.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Really? what is it? Be specific - what in particular demonstrates this notability? --Killerofcruft (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is encyclopedic and the subject is notable. --75.109.249.100 (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Biographicial - Sharvok - McK_CA — 75.109.249.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Firstly, this next part is not intended as my argument, just something I wanted to say.
- I am actually quite offended by everyone. I mean, this is my first time using wikipedia in terms of authoring an article, and I really thought I was contributing something that would be useful to others. I was certain everyone would be a lot more kind than they turned out to be. After all, calling what I wrote "promotional" is alright, but calling it "advertising nonsense" and "spam" is completely rude and unprofessional. It's really entirely not within anyone's right to decide who is or isn't notable, but for an encyclopedia I understand you must pick and choose. But one of the benefits of Wikipedia is that it is supposed to contain a practically limitless array of knowledge available, even if the person is not well known by all of America but rather by those in the particular field of study. That said, if I didn't feel this was important I wouldn't put up with the verbal abuse.
- Now, as for the proof of notability...
- Scott Hammond has an exceptional amount of respect from the speaking community. He has developed parenting strategies from his own experiences as a father. Possibly more importantly he has shared his parenting tips with other fathers who have children with mental disabilities. I know a family in my town that has one child without special needs and the other two with. Since listening to Scott I sent them a link to his website. Their mother has done all the research but she became teary when she read his article about his son, realizing that she wasn't alone in her hardships with these two boys. She then went on to show it to her husband, who honestly seemed to really take a good attitude out of it. I realize that not every person is "notable" enough for an article, but the ability to effect the lives of those with special needs children, help others become better parents, and share his struggle so that others may benefit... to me, that's notable. Please read his article "Growing Up Gabriel" below then maybe you'll see why I chose to look him up and eventually write this article.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EloraC88 (talk • contribs) (as if we had not guessed.)
- I've afraid you haven't presented a single reason why this person is notable. I'm afraid personal testimony of the sort you have just posted is worthless on wikipedia and will play no part in this discussion & decision making process. You need reliable 3rd party sources - not hard luck stories. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't intended as a hard-luck story. It was intended to explain two things. One is that the only measure of an author besides popularity (if that is even a good measure) is in his ability to evoke emotion and create pieces that are meaningful and affect people in a powerful way. Secondly, he is one of very few speakers today who deal with the parenting of special needs children. In addition, he created a system called "Momentum Creation" to which he has exclusive rights. This system has met fantastic reviews. See quote below-
- I've afraid you haven't presented a single reason why this person is notable. I'm afraid personal testimony of the sort you have just posted is worthless on wikipedia and will play no part in this discussion & decision making process. You need reliable 3rd party sources - not hard luck stories. --Killerofcruft (talk) 00:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
“ … quite simply is empowering… He
combines a strong sense of values, beliefs, passion, and practical steps into an inspiring presentation that gives people hope – and direction…” Scott “Q” Marcus, THINspirational Speaker Past president, National Speaker Association,
Northern California
- --EloraC88 (talk) 04:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)EloraC88[reply]
- That is why we put the warning "… edited mercilessly …" on the edit page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrote the article in encyclopedic format; it should be more acceptable now. --Jkorbes (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The prose is better but it still fails as a wikipedia article - on the evidence presented there, this guy is just not notable. --Killerofcruft (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We are not here to evaluate this author as an author, public speaker, father, good person, or potential ruler of India. We are here to evaluate his quality as a possible article subject. Given the utter lack of reliable sources discussing him or his work, he is not an appropriate article subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've profiled Scott on my blog and podcast as part of a continuing series on notable speakers in Northern California who are associated with the National Speakers Association Scott is a graduate of the training program of this association. --IanGriffin (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)— IanGriffin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'm afraid, that interesting as your blog is, it's not considered notable by our standards of reliable sources. sorry about that. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- National Speakers Association is a blatant copyvio. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid, that interesting as your blog is, it's not considered notable by our standards of reliable sources. sorry about that. --Killerofcruft (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well written, follows the guidelines for notable, and show just who the real 'heroes' are in our society:dads who desire to excel in raising loving, responsible citizens. People need all the information and help they can get and publications such as this one will have a large reading audience. These type of publications help us to engage the culture in a positive and transformative way. The biography is interesting and adds credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.47.105 (talk • contribs) — 75.111.47.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- can you explain how it follows those guidelines? please be specific in your answers, giving details of the publications that you think demonstrate this. --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article follows guidelines; cites sources for notability; no problems here. --Kellytherascal (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — Kellytherascal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. new account - only edit is here. --Killerofcruft (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes my account is new, I created it to leave a note? --Kellytherascal (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is very straightforward and simple. Writing a book is notable enough. I haven't written one. If there's no interest then the page won't get many hits. Why not give it a chance and see what happens for a few months?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.194.71.34 (talk • contribs) — 64.194.71.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Article is encyclopedic and the subject is notable. --75.111.46.126 (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)Hammond is renown in both the Special Needs Community (president of the local National Down Syndrome Society Chapter called Buds of the Redwoods)and is a conference speaker with Supported Life Institute and is known in the Speaking/Toastmasters Community in Northern California. — 75.111.46.126 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- In an attempt to stem the SPAs (and I find it curious that EloraC88 has not actually registered a Keep vote yet) I have userfied the page so that EloraC88 can work on the article. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong DELETE. This person fails WP:BIO. And, since other editors here have strong suspicions of WP:SOCK and/or WP:MEAT in this AfD, the closing admin should take that into consideration and very possibly discount all or most of the keep votes here. Qworty (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is encyclopedic and the subject is notable. This article is wonderful and ought to be kept active and alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.63.153 (talk • contribs) — 75.111.63.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. No reliable sources showing notability --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm sure he's a nice guy and everything, but not at all notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted. BJTalk 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dead by Mono Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable record label, is clearly an advert and the article is written with a clear COI. Lugnuts (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:CORP. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, article now meets the WP:MUSIC notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Barachois (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable Amputation (talk) 08:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Canadian band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C1, here, here, and here. They also pass WP:MUSIC#C8 for being nominated for a Juno. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to what User:Esradekan found, I also found articles about the band in The Patriot-News and in the Bangor Daily News and have added those. (There are also no less than 35 articles about the band in the Charlottetown Guardian but unfortunately my library does not have access to the archives of that newspaper.) It's a keep as Esradekan noted above, plus the band has toured internationally. (Also a reminder that guidelines ask us to attempt a search for sources prior to bringing an article to AfD. Thanks.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 19:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nethicite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable. Ged UK (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails everything! Fails WP:N, WP:RS, etc. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete blimey - an epic fail of every policy going. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete- clearly WP:CSD A7- does not show the importance of the subject. Sticky Parkin 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - I don't even see how this makes a claim of notability. TN‑X-Man 18:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - [Insert various policy citations as you see fit here] -Rushyo (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and close per WP:SNOW. But do not speedy delete delete it; it does not meet the relevant criteria. To the above speedies: A7 is strictly for real people/clubs/bands/companies and organisations. WP:N and WP:RS are not speedy criteria. Nevertheless, it's pointless to keep this open much longer, because it clearly fails all policies. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, due to verifiability and notability concerns. Davewild (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1/2 Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was a contested prod. The article is completely unreferenced and is about a non-notable fictional character. No google hits except a myspace profile. The article is written by a user whose username is the same as the name of the creator of the comic, so there's potentially a COI. There was a List of 1/2 Man Villians that was deleted: in fact I believe it was speedied. L'Aquatique[review] 07:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, this is the delete log for List of 1/2 Man Villains: [31], it was speedied under G1. L'Aquatique[review] 08:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I am absolutely convinced that this "comic" does not exist. Unfortunately, self-evident hoax is not a speedy deletion criteria. --Stormie (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indeed looks like a hoax, and not a good one. Otherwise, also non-notable, uncited etc.Yobmod (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability. Rnb (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Connor Traut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A auto biographical article by a high school student. Claim to notability is that he is the ABA BMX "13 Rookie" National Champion, although the source used [32], shows he came second in a junior class. I don't believe this meet WP:BIO generally, since there is no verifiable, third party coverage to show this is significant. I also think it fails WP:ATHLETE, since I believe the intention of "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" is to cover Olympic-level athletes, not one of several hundred junior competitors in this competition. Gwernol 07:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inflated claims. Fails WP:ATHLETE--clearly a second place novice finish in an underage category isn't competing at the highest level of sport, nor is it a national championship, which the article asserts. As per the excellent nom, clearly fails WP:BIO generally, insufficient third-party coverage by reliable sources. Darkspots (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreferenced mess. As nominator points out, claims are inflated, although I do like the bit about the rock band. TN‑X-Man 17:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. Non-notable and unreferenced. Should it have been speedied?Yobmod (talk) 11:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just FYI, both speedy and Prod deletions have already been tried for this article, hence the AfD discussion. Best, Gwernol 11:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elijah Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed Prod for a non-notable Pop Warner football player in New Jersey. No reliable sources cited or found. Subject fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 05:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Interesting that he plays basketball, boxing and tack as well, but nothing makes him notable Nyttend (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails Wikipedia:ATHLETE. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he's like a middle school football player. matt91486 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable peewee football player. Possibly could have been speedied. TN‑X-Man 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - a 14 year old football player --T-rex 05:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Kubek15 (Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX) 10:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Simply non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 11:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a well-done page, looks like a good kid and if I was in Jersey I'd try to go watch one of his games, looks like he might be a pretty darned good athlete for his age. But it doesn't belong here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Why is this even here? Vanity page that doesn't assert notability created by editor with COI. Speedy Delete. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was userfy to User:Trippplethreat/7-Acetoxymitragynine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 7-Acetoxymitragynine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Based entirely on original research, as discussed on the creator's talkpage (see User talk:Trippplethreat). The only reference in the article refers to a different compound, 7-hydroxymitragynine, which already has an article. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice to recreation if the sources for this article get published. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A subject requires multiple published sources, independent of the subject, to establish notability, and to attribute any information. If the only article on this alkaloid is unpublished, then there are no sources. Original research, as the nominator said. Calgary (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR, RS. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per OR and N. Artene50 (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "Nyttend" the publication will happen before 2009--Trippplethreat (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as WP:OR. The creating editor has stated as such on the associated talkpages. He/she is researching this compound and may be published in a peer reviewed journal soon but until that time this article should not be included. It's a good faith article but the editor was not aware of wikipedia policies regarding WP:NOT Nk.sheridan Talk 22:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounds like a student writing about his project. Hope it works out, but until it is published in a decent journal, has no place here, as is OR and crystall-balling. (Chemicals very rarely work as expected! :-))Yobmod (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Chemicals are notable just by existing. However, since information on the chemical is unpublished, there is no RS that it exists, what its properties are, etc. Once this is published, even in thesis form, feel free to recreate. HatlessAtless (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 7-hydroxymitragynine as this compound is a prodrug for the hydroxy compound, for which there are references available. 7-acetoxymitragynine does exist and is being sold and used as a research chemical, but all the information available about it could be summarised to a single line on the 7-hydroxymitragynine page saying something like "and the O-acetyl derivative has also been reported",
and there are no reliable sources for 7-acetoxymitragynine itself. Meodipt (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Actually I was wrong, 7-acetoxymitragynine has been documented in a reputable journal, ( J Med Chem 2002;45(9):1949-56. PMID 11960505 ), as compound #11. So there is a reliable source for the compound's existence, and it has been found to be an active mu-opioid agonist. Whether it is really notable enough to warrant its own page is another matter, I vote for redirect and add a line to the 7-hydroxymitragynine page to note the existence of the acetyl ester. Meodipt (talk) 06:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Meodipt. I don't think the compound is notable enough for an own article, but redirects are cheap and some mention of it can be made in the hydroxy- article since it has been mentioned in the literature. --Itub (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. I will be happy to recreate the page when the my research has been published.--Trippplethreat (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal I'd like to close this AFD with a WP:USERFY to Trippplethreat's userspace. When more references turn up, he can move it back to the main space. This prevents a waste of effort, while preserving the community consensus that this article is not ready for prime time. Are there any objections? Tripplethreat: this means that the article (with all the history) will reside on within your "sandbox" - User:Trippplethreat/7-Acetoxymitragynine. You can edit it all you like. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. I think I did it correctly, correct me if this was not what you were thinking of. Thanks for the idea.
PS: I am assuming this way the information will still be out to the common googler looking for info on this compound?--Trippplethreat (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite; I've fixed it with a page move now. Google will still catch it, though it might not have the same page rank as an article on the mainspace. Further discussion should go to User talk:Trippplethreat/7-Acetoxymitragynine. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that this article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haters (La, La, La) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I am somewhat confused about the notability of this song. Search on Google did not raise up many huge and notable hits. Marlith (Talk) 23:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - song does not even appear on Tha Carter III as the article claims --T-rex 16:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - gives no more info than can be found on the artist or album articles. A stunb like this helps no-one.Yobmod (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Why this was contested I have no idea, but the subject does not meet any biographical notability guidelines and appears to be somewhat of an attack page as well. I have checked and there are no reliable third party publications about this person. JBsupreme (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen
Weak KeepI undid the attack vandalism that you mentioned. I believe that per WP:ENTERTAINER, Gano Grills barely passes, as he does have fairly significant roles in at least two movies, and has made guest appearances on TV shows. Boccobrock•T 04:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you for correcting that. Usually we do not host articles about people who are extras in television shows, and unless this person has received non-trivial coverage by reputable third party publications I'm afraid this should still be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After looking at it a bit more, and realizing he really doesn't have any major role, I completely agree. Boccobrock•T 15:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If there aren't good sources, we can't have a reliable article, so the person can't be notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think it passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too minor a performer to have own article.Yobmod (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Masterpiece2000. Xihr (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Betcha Can't Do It Like Me (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
per WP:Music
"Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."
The band itself is of questionable notability, being self produced and self published...but that's for a different AfD. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Unless the song did something great, it isn't needed. Ex: "Imagine" by John Lennon. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:music. --Killerofcruft (talk) 08:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - gives no more info than can be found on the artist or album articles.Yobmod (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete. Entry redirected to Tanggula Mountains. --Lenticel (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tangula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reads like an advertisement. No sources. Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. No citations. Delete Undeath (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as that sounds like a great trip across China.... delete. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete not only does it sound promotional, it is a blatant copyright violation from the Tangula website. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No citations? It's all available at this website: even the exact wording is at that website! Hmm, perhaps there's this thing called "copyright..." Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 22:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- LexJet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Reads like an ad. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It reads like an ad, and doesn't seem notable. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep the subject is very notable, google news shows a great wealth of RS on the company[33] and the POV problems do not seem dire enough to purge the whole article. -Icewedge (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Many Google news hits hint at notability. I disagree completely that this article reads like an advertisement. It is not perfectly neutral, but this is grounds for improvement, not deletion. The company is the subject of multiple independent third-party sources, which is enough to warrant its own article. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep— After going over the evidence both FrankTobia and Icewedge present, I'm gonna change my mind. But, I still think it reads like an ad, and that's a problem. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep It doesn't seem too advertish to me, needs some work but clearly notable and definitely not a candidate for deletion. L'Aquatique[review] 04:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete due to the lack of reliable sources to verify article. Davewild (talk) 15:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cobb’s Curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neologism...The Urban Dictionary isn't a reliable source...anyone can add anything. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only source is urban dictionary, however what few ghits a google search turns up, while medical, seem to be more related to the spine - in particular, in conjunction with scoliosis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen Lack of reliable sources, I'd even say potential hoax. Who thinks this stuff up, anyway? L'Aquatique[review] 04:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced, and trans to Wiktionary if it does get appropriately sourced before this closes. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No sources and apparent hoax. TN‑X-Man 17:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Neologism or hoax. I never learnt this in physiology lectues.Yobmod (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep and improve; additional sources have been added since this nomination to illustrate the subject's notability. - DiligentTerrier (and friends)15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No secondary sources that would indicate notability per WP:BIO Kevin (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cite good sources — He looks notable, but as said above, the lack of sources make it hard. If it was given some sources, some more info, then I would want it kept. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - might have some notability, but doesn't appear to meet any criteria at WP:BIO. Seems to be fair game for a stub. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BIO, no indication of notability, lack of available sources. Gary Stein the New Jersey judge might be notable, Gary Stein the radio sales guy/pregame-postgame show host, isn't.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete as the listed jobs would certainly make him notable but this needs sourcing to prove both notability and verifiability. I can find the former justice, the deputy administrator for the Ohio Bureau of Employment, a Canadian baseball player, and plenty of other Gary Steins but this common name is deeply hindering my google-fu. - Dravecky (talk) 05:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. Not enough notability. Radio jockey is just a job, not proof of inherent notability. Yobmod (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the creator of the article, and other than the citation issues, I'm not quite clear on why this article should be removed. There are two sources for the article, which I have tried to add to the page, but I'm not sure how to do so correctly. The sources are: http://www.kirkandmark.com/ and http://baltimoregameday.com/. If anyone would like to help add these sources so that the article could stay, that would be great. Here in the Baltimore area, Gary Stein is considered a notable person to sports fans. Why should the article not be kept?
- What you need to do is show how Gary is notable, using the guidelines for notability of biographies at WP:BIO. Essentially, show where reliable independent sources i.e newspapers or magazines have written about Gary, in more than a trivial way. Kevin (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you mean, Kevin. I'm not really sure what to do. Honestly, I'm not really sure if he has been written about in newspapers or magazines. In my opinion, it doesn't even make sense that they would (and in doing so advertise him), because people who listen to Gary's coverage of the game are less likely to read their publications for game coverage. I will see what I can do. But at the same time, if you turn on the radio any morning you will hear him, and many other times too. Maybe the proof just isn't in writing in many places. I'll do my best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.43.126 (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in South Australia, not sure my radio reaches that far. If he is notable locally, I can't imagine that he has never been written about. Ring his show maybe - he'll surely tell you. Kevin (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you mean, Kevin. I'm not really sure what to do. Honestly, I'm not really sure if he has been written about in newspapers or magazines. In my opinion, it doesn't even make sense that they would (and in doing so advertise him), because people who listen to Gary's coverage of the game are less likely to read their publications for game coverage. I will see what I can do. But at the same time, if you turn on the radio any morning you will hear him, and many other times too. Maybe the proof just isn't in writing in many places. I'll do my best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.43.126 (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I am echoing Calvin 1998's opinion -- I am sure this can be built up. No need to push it to deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 02:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Gate City Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article, as presented, does not offer any evidence of notability for this bank. The original article text also seems a bit promotional. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. The article in its current state is just bad, but the bank looks like it fits into WP:CORP based on the description in the article and on the website. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite — I see potential, and it isn't entirely non-notable. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 01:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite a few gnews hits indicates a high probability of notability. While a number of them will be passing mentions, I'm sure notability can be established, especially for a bank around since 1923.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems large enough to be notable. Desperate need of referencing though - at least one!Yobmod (talk) 11:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, there is very little support for deletion here and strong support and arguments made for keeping a seperate article from Taser. No prejudice to discussion on renaming or splitting as necessary which can be discussed on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Taser controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete - "Controversy" article acts as a POV fork of Taser and played the function of allowing information that put the stun gun in a bad light to be moved to the fork where fewer people would see it. Information here should be moved to Taser or to related articles such as TASER International, Braidwood Inquiry, Robert Dziekański taser incident, UCLA taser incident or University of Florida taser incident. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Taser is also acceptable. Comparing the traffic statistics for Taser and Taser controversy is interesting. In April 2008 Taser had 29,754 hits; compared to 4,348 hits for Taser controversy. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this topic is in the news constantly; I might rename it to "Safety of TASER Use" or something. JJL (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason why the newsworthy information can't be in the main Taser article? I don't see why having a "controversy" fork is desirable. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Length of article if content is merged. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any reason why the newsworthy information can't be in the main Taser article? I don't see why having a "controversy" fork is desirable. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — The article is effective by itself, and any POV in the article (and I didn't see much) can be written out. Also, as for merging, I think that a section, if not a subsection, should be made on a Taser article, with a link to this one. This article is notable, and IMO, deserves it's own space. A renaming of the article might work, but it would have to stay along the lines of Taser controversy; it need to be simple, and "Safety of TASER Use" seems really indisrciminate. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is well written and very well researched. I believe it can stand on its own and does not need to be merged or redirected (it certainly should not be deleted). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the subject of controversy surrounding tasers in the media and in the public spectrum is notable, and as JJL said, it's in the media all the time. The problem with this article is that because it also includes substantial information regarding taser safety concerns, and other such information, it is more of a non-specific general article about controversy surrounding tasers, rather than one specific article. I agree that this is a definite content fork, but at the same time it doesn't have to be. I don't think the forking is a POV issue, because the article itself is written from a neutral perspective, and puts all of the information into context without bias, without exclusively including information that would "put the stun gun in a bad light", or including any such information without qualifying it. Still, it is a content fork nonetheless, but I think something can be done about that. The article can be broken up into two components, controversy surrounding the safety of tasers, and controversy surrounding the use of tasers. As far as the safety issues, the two articles actually link to each other, and there's quite a bit of material, so I think merging it all into the taser article might take up excessive space, so it might be best to take the material from both articles and split it into a single separate article, something along the lines of Criticism of taser safety, or even better Safety concerns surrounding tasers. As far as the rest, concerning the political controversy surrounding the use of tasers, this could potentially see a merge into the main taser article, but I think it has enough notability on its own, not as a taser-related article, but as a subtopic relating to alleged police brutality, and the very public discussions surrounding it. As such, I don't think it would be a content fork at all to keep the article with the remaining information, considering that stripped of the safety issues, it is not actually an article about tasers at all, but rather an article about criticism of how tasers are used. So I don;t see why we shouldn't keep it (athough a more specific name might be better). So Split, Merge, Keep, and possibly Rename. Calgary (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back into Taser. Good, bad, and ugly Taser info should all be in one article. Since there is a potential POV issue, (controversy = bad) I'd rather see a forced de-fork to make sure one doesn't develop. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Long enough to merit a separate article. There's no reason not to include a smaller section in the main article too, of course. Maxamegalon2000 05:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable subject on a real issue--possible misuse of tasers by public authorities. Artene50 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Rename to Safety of Taser Use.(I changed my mind!) Also include a brief mention in the main article. Provided all contributions are cited, there's no reason to think that POV will be an issue. -- JediLofty UserTalk 12:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, there is. If you look at the history of Taser and what the article looked like a few months ago when all references to "controversy" had been removed and dumped into the sub article. The problem isn't that the Taser controversy article will be POV but that the man Taser article would be POV because all or most references to deaths, legal actions, studies etc could be removed except for a short summary. In other words, the danger is that the main Taser article will once again be whitewashed. See this old version of "Taser" to see what I'm talking about. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the editor responsible for the most recent "whitewashing" of Taser. I moved the Safety section, leaving a summary in Taser and integrating the content into Taser controversy. Reggie Perrin disagreed with the edits, eventually copying the Studies subsection back to Taser. One should note that my summary's omission of studies removes content supporting both POVs, remaining acceptably NPOV (in my opinion). I found it difficult to write a good summary of Studies. Flatscan (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's part of the problem, the summary you wrote omitted vital information, in fact according to the diff you posted there was no summary, you simply omitted all information on clinical studies on Taser and that's a pretty whopping omission! Your "summary" didn't mention any studies whatsoever, most distressingly it omitted the study on Taser's affect on heart function. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The brief (3 sentence) summary covers the entire Safety section. I acknowledged the omission of the studies and gave a good-faith explanation. I would have preferred if you had discussed or corrected the deficiencies in the summary instead of effectively reverting. Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I had jumped to conclusions about your motivations and should have AGF. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The brief (3 sentence) summary covers the entire Safety section. I acknowledged the omission of the studies and gave a good-faith explanation. I would have preferred if you had discussed or corrected the deficiencies in the summary instead of effectively reverting. Flatscan (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's part of the problem, the summary you wrote omitted vital information, in fact according to the diff you posted there was no summary, you simply omitted all information on clinical studies on Taser and that's a pretty whopping omission! Your "summary" didn't mention any studies whatsoever, most distressingly it omitted the study on Taser's affect on heart function. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the editor responsible for the most recent "whitewashing" of Taser. I moved the Safety section, leaving a summary in Taser and integrating the content into Taser controversy. Reggie Perrin disagreed with the edits, eventually copying the Studies subsection back to Taser. One should note that my summary's omission of studies removes content supporting both POVs, remaining acceptably NPOV (in my opinion). I found it difficult to write a good summary of Studies. Flatscan (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree. The Taser article isn't exactly small and neither is Taser controversy - having them together would make for an unweildy article, I think. -- JediLofty UserTalk 14:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response, are there no other ways to divide the article other than by dividing off the material on controversy from the non-controversy material? Removing all or most critical information from the Taser article is what causes an NPOV problem since it turns the main article (which gets almost 10 times more hits) into a puff piece with all the information on Taser's downsides shipped off into exile where few people will see it. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I don't think that not including all of the information surrounding safety concerns and criticism of taser use in the main article could be considered POV. It's not as though we're completely removing any mention of these things from the main article and hiding it away in this article, we're just including the details in a separate article, linked directly from the main article, as is customary for exceptionally long sections. I'd see it as comparable to having separate articles for World War II casualties and World War II atrocities, rather than including them both in the main World War II article. The fact that the main article includes less detail does not hide the information from the reader, it just provides different (and better) organization. And I doubt the information could be considered "hidden away" when the main article includes a summary and a direct link to the sub article. The reader is presented with access to just as much information when reading the article, it's just that for more detail the reader has to click to the separate article rather than scrolling down the page. So if this is indeed an effort to bias the main article, I'd say it's a very poorly constructed one. Calgary (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think several summaries would be better than a single summary. "Taser controversy" is a catch-all with information on everything from taser deaths, to legal issues, studies on the taser, political questions etc some of which have little to do with one another. In fact there is not a single "Taser controversy" but several controversies several of which are completely unrelated. If there is to be a secondary article than there must be not a single short summary but summaries on each main question - eg a summary of the studies on Taser, a summary on deaths and injuries, a summary on court cases, a summary on safety and a summary on the other issues (torture, political suppression, fire hazard and use in schools). Having a one paragraph summary of everything in the Taser controversy article would shoe-horn a lot in very little space and have a negative effect on the Taser article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I agree, but as I said before, this can easily be done by dividing the Taser controversy article into two separate articles, one dealing with the safety of tasers, and one dealing with the use of tasers, since the article as it stands can clearly be broken up into those two components. "Safety" would include, from the article as it stands now, the sections "safety", "advantages and disadvantages", "deaths and injuries" and "fire risk". Now, keep in mind that much of this is already covered substantially (yet not redundantly) in the main taser article, and I don't see why the information can't be pooled, summarized and broken off. You say we couldn't include a summary on studies, fatalities and safety concerns in the main article, but this is already present in the main article. I think some of the information in the controversy article belongs in the main article, and vice-versa, but I don't think it's a stretch to summarize this in the main article, while including more detail in a separate article (for example, specific notable fatalities, the statistical information from each individual study, etc.). Then there's the issue of the other components, which deal with the use of tasers. I don't think this is too difficult to resolve, because political issues surrounding taser use is a separate topic unto itself, as I said before, having more to do with police brutality and human rights than tasers themselves. I'm not suggesting that it doesn't deserve a mention in the taser article, because it is related, but I'm saying that it is its own topic and deserves its own article. Calgary (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think several summaries would be better than a single summary. "Taser controversy" is a catch-all with information on everything from taser deaths, to legal issues, studies on the taser, political questions etc some of which have little to do with one another. In fact there is not a single "Taser controversy" but several controversies several of which are completely unrelated. If there is to be a secondary article than there must be not a single short summary but summaries on each main question - eg a summary of the studies on Taser, a summary on deaths and injuries, a summary on court cases, a summary on safety and a summary on the other issues (torture, political suppression, fire hazard and use in schools). Having a one paragraph summary of everything in the Taser controversy article would shoe-horn a lot in very little space and have a negative effect on the Taser article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is. If you look at the history of Taser and what the article looked like a few months ago when all references to "controversy" had been removed and dumped into the sub article. The problem isn't that the Taser controversy article will be POV but that the man Taser article would be POV because all or most references to deaths, legal actions, studies etc could be removed except for a short summary. In other words, the danger is that the main Taser article will once again be whitewashed. See this old version of "Taser" to see what I'm talking about. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response True, it is already in the main article and I'm pretty much satisfied with the state of Taser. My concern is that the material on studies etc that is now in Taser will be dumped into Taser controversy which was the situation until several weeks ago. Reggie Perrin (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Yes, but if the concern is that some material may or may not be moved from one article to the other, is that a valid rationale for deleting the entire second article, or is it just something that needs to be worked out on the article's talk page? Because I think we've established that it's a good idea to have separate articles, as I understand it you're argument simply involves where we include what information. Calgary (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that the article will return to this state where all of the information on scientific studies on Taser was missing (instead we had a section on live taser demonstrations showing the device was safee) along with all information on lawsuits (except for Taser International CEO Rick Smith has testified in Taser-related lawsuit that the catalyst for the development of the device was the "shooting death of two of his high school acquaintances" by a "guy with a legally licensed gun who lost his temper" which wasn't about the lawsuit at all) and most of the information on Taser deaths was also missing. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Yes, I understand, but surely that is a matter for the maintenence of the individual article, and should be discussed on the taser article's talk page. I don't see how an otherwise valid article should be deleted simply because some people may or may not try to use it as a reason to remove some information from the main article. The argument you're making is a very good argument for including an appropriate summary in the main article. The fact that some editors may try to remove this information may need to be dealt with, but it is an issue relating to the article itself, not a valid reason for deleting an entirely appropriate spinout article. Calgary (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is that the article will return to this state where all of the information on scientific studies on Taser was missing (instead we had a section on live taser demonstrations showing the device was safee) along with all information on lawsuits (except for Taser International CEO Rick Smith has testified in Taser-related lawsuit that the catalyst for the development of the device was the "shooting death of two of his high school acquaintances" by a "guy with a legally licensed gun who lost his temper" which wasn't about the lawsuit at all) and most of the information on Taser deaths was also missing. Reggie Perrin (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Yes, but if the concern is that some material may or may not be moved from one article to the other, is that a valid rationale for deleting the entire second article, or is it just something that needs to be worked out on the article's talk page? Because I think we've established that it's a good idea to have separate articles, as I understand it you're argument simply involves where we include what information. Calgary (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as well researched and sourced, and very notable topic. I don't think it needs to be renamed. The fact there is controversy over its use is well established fact, so it isn't an NPOV violation to give it this title. 23skidoo (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is well researched and notable - so why shouldn't this information be in the main Taser article where people will actually be able to see it? Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep amongst other things. A quick look at the Taser TOC reveals that most of this controversy is already covered in that article, however, it's notable enough on its own. In my opinion, it should be briefly mentioned in Taser with the {{main}} template conspicuously linked to the current page (Taser controversy), as is customary. However, a quick look over this article reveals that there is a possibility of POV. Both need to be improved, but this article, in my opinion, should be kept (it is a separate topic, anyhow). Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems well researched and encyclopedic, and is already too long to comfortably sit within the Taser article. And it can be expanded far further - there is no mention here of the taser controversy as a worldwide political controversy. The article as it currently stands seems to deal mainly with the US and Canada, yet its also been a major controversy in many other parts of the world - here in New Zealand for instance (I've added a "globalise" template in an attempt to get some movement in this). Grutness...wha? 01:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maintain keep For Mr. Perrin who contacted me about my previous vote. The issue of deaths/injuries resulting from the use (or perhaps overuse) of tasers is important enought to warrant a separate article on Wikipedia. Besides, why can't there be different articles for 'taser' and 'taser controversy' anyway? They are both notable topics. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a well written, well referenced article on a notable subject --T-rex 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Taser, as a POV fork. Otherwise a nice article.Yobmod (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: article stands on its own; not a blatant POV fork. Disclosure: I am involved in an ongoing content dispute at Talk:Taser#RFC: Criticism. As there was a recent RfC that closed without outside comment, I would like to encourage editors who have commented here to consider contributing to the discussion there. Flatscan (talk) 02:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Cogent, well-sourced, balanced, encyclopedic article. --Lockley (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- merge with Taser. The content of the article is great. It is unfortunate that the title "Taser controversy" gives the appearance that it is a POV fork. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep adjust the title if necessary, but do not merge. There is enough information in the main article that this separate one is appropriate for the aspects discussed. DGG (talk) 06:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that he fails the notability guidelines at this time. Davewild (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Jonathan Lade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:Athlete...college athletes don't qualify. Recreated multiple times, bringing here for more input and possible salting. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Obviously you have no patience. I plan to further expand the article. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Has been in Maldshal's userspace since March [34]
- Delete. He's doing good, but doesn't meet WP:N. If he goes pro, then recreate at that time. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. fails WP:Athlete. --Killerofcruft (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreement on WP:Athlete - the lack of referenced sources doesn't help, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yup, it's clearly stated in WP:ATHLETE - Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis. - unless this athlete gains notability through the generic third-party sources method or goes pro to meet this criteria, he has no notability and therefore should not be included in Wikipedia. No prejudice to merging to a relevant article, I personally can't find one though. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. fails WP:Athlete. If he becomes notable, article can be recreated. Expansion can be done outside the mainspace for now.Yobmod (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. As Meldshal said, wait for this to be expanded. I agree that this does fail WP:Athlete right now, but give Meldshal the time she needs to expand this into a decent article. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 20:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with above re: Wp:Athlete. Lade compares strongly to some current professional lax dmen (esp. some of the more athletic ones), but until he turns pro, or wins a major award (like the Schmeisser Award) he does not meet wikipedia notability standards. This the general standard used by WP:LAX -Mitico (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After considering it more, I still think notablility not established. My pause was: being a member of the 2008 U-19 Team USA enough to cause notabilty? My first response was no. However, I decided to look at other sports. Here is the US U-20 soccer team roster, and while some of these players are pro, others are not. Of the college athletes only two have articles: Ofori Sarkodie which is up for deletion & Andre Akpan who may have senior experience(?). So the analysis of WP:Athlete by others above is correct, IMO. Mitico (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all per consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DJ Diego Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Note - this article has been deleted as a recreation of previously deleted material. Kevin (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Albums:
- Diego García discography & Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Computer EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Radiolactive Music Lab CD Single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nuclear Fusion CD Single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Infectious Substances CD Single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- So Technoligic Music/TechnoWindMix CD Single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dance With Me CD Single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nowhere Near & Hanging On(The Seasons Song) CD Single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- School N.E.R.D. Dance EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Klaxon Beat CD Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Recreation of previously deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Diego García(DJ Of Argentina)). Doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC requirements. Recommend Delete, along with albums. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 00:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All. Reads like a vanity page. History gives the distinct flavor of WP:COI. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. No evidence that any are notable. Kevin (talk) 03:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all if the artist is NN then I doubt the songs are either. -Icewedge (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per above. JBsupreme (talk) 04:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all until and unless root article succeeds in being recreated via DRV. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all repeatedly recreated hoax. JuJube (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per all the above. tomasz. 09:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball delete all Artist is clearly non-notable and has been deleted; artist's works clearly fail too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 11:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete, consensus is that she fails the notability guideline. However she is mentioned in the Iain Duncan Smith article so will boldly create a redirect after deletion. Davewild (talk) 13:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ellen Oshey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete only notable aspect of this person was her being the grandmother of someone notable, Ian Duncan Smith (as well as the distant cousin of GB Shaw through marriage) Mayumashu (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Going with delete as well. Doesn't fall into notability unfortunately, and being distantly related by marriage to GB Shaw doesn't do the trick. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but merge— She shouldn't have her own page, but should be mentioned here. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COmment GFDL prevents merge and delete. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not even really significant for Smith's article and certainly not a plausible search term. For exotic ancestry Boris Johnson (descendant of an Ottoman Grand Vizier) has him all beat. --Dhartung | Talk 08:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and it is Iain Duncan Smith. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems totally non-notable. Maybe worth a single mention onf IDM's page, at most.Yobmod (talk) 11:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Iain Duncan Smith per Leonard Bloom's suggestion above. --Lockley (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, article needs editing, not deleting. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Tube lemma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dear All,
I believe that this article should be either nominated for deletion or restarted (deleted and rewritten) for the following reasons:
1. The article does not provide a purpose or reason for proving the tube lemma.
2. The proof is correct but not appropriately structured.
3. A much simpler proof exists.
4. The article does not give the general form of the tube lemma which is a much stronger result than the tube lemma. This is another reason why the article should be restarted.
5. The article should properly define terminology such as what a slice is and what a tube is in dot points.
6. This is not the exact form of the tube lemma; the following is:
Let N be an open set containing {x} X Y for some x belonging to X where X and Y are topological spaces. If Y is compact, then there exists U open in X such that the tube U X Y contains {x} X Y and is contained in N.
Note the difference: N need not cover X X Y.
7. A proper proof should not require the use of projection maps. The result: If X is compact and Y is homeomorphic to X, then Y is compact, should be used in order to provide an easier proof. Basically, it should be stated clearly in the proof that the image of a compact space under a continuous map is compact.
8. The generalized tube lemma will give some purpose to this article; without it the article is not complete.
9. The article doesn't state that the purpose of the tube lemma is to prove that the product of finitely many compact spaces is compact and that the tube lemma cannot be generalized to arbitrary products.
10. The article doesn't supply any links to the Tychonoff theorem. It doesn't even hint at any relation between the tube lemma and compactness.
I hope you agree with all the reasons I have put forth. I am going to put up and AFD tag for the above reasons. Basically, my purpose is to remove this article and add a new article on the generalized tube lemma with applications to compactness. Since the article is short, this is a much better alternative than editing the article (which will be a much longer process).
Note that if this article is deleted, I wil start a new article on the generalized tube lemma which will be properly structured, and provide applications to compactness. Topology Expert (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles do not need to be deleted in order to be improved. These are very good suggestions for improvement, but none of them suggest a compelling reason for deletion. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Silly Rabbit. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and make your suggested edits. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 13:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has problems? WP:SOFIXIT! That's the whole point of a wiki. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 21:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The nominator has not explained how an emperor of China could fail to be considered notable. Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Xuande Emperor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
little known figure in Chinese history. He fails the guidelines for WP:Notability Ihopeididwell (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, possibly rewrite The article looks good, and I'm kinda confused how it it fails on notability; he looks to be an influential, albeit not very well know, important person in Chinese history. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have to echo Leonard Bloom on this -- notability seems fairly obvious in the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable, per Leonard and Ecoleetage above. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. There is no way this is non notable. Undeath (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong/Speedy/Snowball Keep As it says at WP:PEOPLE, the basic notability criteria people is this: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" Not only do multiple (and I mean very multiple) independent sources exist , but sufficient sources are mentioned in the article. And on top of that, I very seriously doubt that any Emperor of China is going to be so "little known" as to not be the subject of a great deal of study and published material (Believe me, historians love this sort of thing. They make a career out of it). Calgary (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep A real emperor up for deletion as not notable? WP:POLITICIAN says that "people who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges" are notable, and I think emperors qualify under this criterion :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't imagine an emperor of China not being notable. Maxamegalon2000 05:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The correct section under WP:BIO would be WP:BIO#Politicians, which explicitly states that
People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges [are generally notable].
- A Chinese emperor of 10 years definitely meets that criteria. I'm also suspecting that this is a bad-faith nomination, seeing that this nomination is the only edit this user has, and that it's almost obviously keep per the quote above. Taking these 2 facts into consideration, I'm going for speedy keep. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Also please see WP:Coatrack. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has political purpose. and This word has been expired in Korea. In ko.wikipedia, Its Deletion discussion is being continuous, and ja.wikipedia, It was deleted.--Kwj2772 (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy and strongly delete It doesn't have any historic value. -- Theoteryi (talk) 14:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- deleteMB castle is too minor to be an article of a 'Encyclopedia'. Should be deleted quickly. adidas (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The discussions for deletion at the two Wikipedia do not justify to delete the article. Even highly reliable and credential news media such as KBS featured it as a main subject (with its name "myeongbaksansanseong") as did New York Times and other major international media. Besides, the nominator and editor who support for deletion are the same people having tried to delete the article at Korean Wikipedia. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not for things you made up at the umpteenth-thousandth Korean protest one day. L0b0t (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definately was not made up. Even though not well known, this article is still notable. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 17:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh, it most certainly was "just made up one day", it says so right in the article. You did READ the article before opining here at AfD didn't you? L0b0t (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell if you're being snarky or just playing some weird semantics game. Of course "made up by the author of the article" is implied by WP:NFT. Otherwise the United States Declaration of Independence would qualify for deletion under Wikipedia is not something you and your friends drafted and ratified one day. Ford MF (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything was made up at one time or another. As Ford stated above, then the Declaration of Independence could be deleted. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 11:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell if you're being snarky or just playing some weird semantics game. Of course "made up by the author of the article" is implied by WP:NFT. Otherwise the United States Declaration of Independence would qualify for deletion under Wikipedia is not something you and your friends drafted and ratified one day. Ford MF (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. I thought you were stating that the author of the article made it up. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhh, it most certainly was "just made up one day", it says so right in the article. You did READ the article before opining here at AfD didn't you? L0b0t (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No I was not saying the author made up the neologism, nor does wp:NFT require the author of the article to be the creator of the "thing made up one day." This article even states: "...this word was a sarcastic term created by a netizen..." so it seems clear to me. Your reductio ad absurdum is well taken though. My apologies for any confusion I may have caused. This article, however, still fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for nelogisms and Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for structures. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — Although not well known, this article ties into political unrest in South Korea. It seems notable, and a good article all around. It even has a picture! :P Leonard^Bloom (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Well written article, definately notable, even if not well known. Just because a word was expired does not mean that it did not exist at one time. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. Word has only been around less then one month. GtstrickyTalk or C 19:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Put the information in an article on the Beef Imports Fracas, if there is one. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Strongly oppose to delete! This term came from Korea and editors of Korean Wikipedia have discussed, now it seems to be kept but not determined yet. We could follow the decision of Korean editors later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuch (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No historical value. --Eleassar my talk 06:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is the English wikipedia, not a korean slang dictionary. Too minor to exist as its own aritlce.Yobmod (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Current U.S. pop-culture is represented down to individual episodes of TV series, and single phrases from cartoons, which is as it should be, since this is the kind of thing Wikipedia does best. But to, at the same time, intentionally remove a sourced, well-written article on a topic in Korean society is to intentionally push cultural myopia and bias onto Wikipedia. We should work against that. Dekkappai (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Reply I was posting a reply of that exact quality, but an edit conflict canceled out my posting of links to LOL, Ceiling cat, and All your base are belong to us. The political unrest in Korea is huge right now, and this should be acknowledged by the keeping of an article that describes the reaction the government in question. Also, how is this not historical important? The government is showing it's solution to social unrest! That's usually pretty important. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is a redirect set up for Lee Myung-bak's castle, it now redirects to Myungbaksanseong. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherstuff exists is not a good argument. Also, my problem with this term is that it is not English. English speaking people will never search for it. If it's topic is really notable, there should be an English language equivlanet, but there isn't.Yobmod (talk) 10:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The latter part of your contention is that if it was notable, it would have an English equivalent, and I agree to some extent, but something that doesn't have an English equivalent already exists on Wikipedia. After WWII, the Germans had to deal with their past and what they did, and they have a word for it (Vergangenheitsbewältigung), and looking through some articles, I found two that relate to this very idea, one is a full article, and another is substantial section of the Consequences of German Nazism. Although your point about it not being searched by English users is valid, I don't think deletion is the appropriate measure for that problem. We could just mention it and link it somewhere else, a much more travleled article, such as the article on the Government of South Korea. Much appreciated, and happy editing all, Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Other stuff exists is not the argument. The argument is that if this is an "encyclopedia" it should cover both English and non-English subjects, unless it wishes to intentionally be biased and myopic. The latter part of your argument is shear nonsense. Every non-English subject needs to have an English title now? Dekkappai (talk) 17:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell who that rebuttal is directed at. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (The one above yours, the one to which you were replying, Leonard). Dekkappai (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There is a redirect set up for Lee Myung-bak's castle, it now redirects to Myungbaksanseong. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Reply I was posting a reply of that exact quality, but an edit conflict canceled out my posting of links to LOL, Ceiling cat, and All your base are belong to us. The political unrest in Korea is huge right now, and this should be acknowledged by the keeping of an article that describes the reaction the government in question. Also, how is this not historical important? The government is showing it's solution to social unrest! That's usually pretty important. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MB Castle is just one-day event. Do you really think that 'one-day event' can be an article of Wikipedia? adidas (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the length of an event is short doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Leonard(Bloom) 19:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or at best redirect to US beef imports in South Korea. This is text-book example of WP:NEO. The article itself is so poorly written that it takes a while to understand what it is about. It is both attempting to define the word (for which we have Wiktionary, and where the word might be accepted), and to deal with the protest regarding US beef imports in South Korea. The best place to deal with the protests is in the article about the protests, where the word may be used after carefully reading the guidance on WP:NEO. Given that this is a recent word, and is used in conjunction with one event, I would say it is far too early to enter it in Wiktionary, but a reference to the term might inform the US beef imports in South Korea article. SilkTork *YES! 10:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the criteria of inclusion, for Wiktionary, I didn't notice anything directly relating to neologisms, but I think that the section about idioms is the most constructive to the issue here; Myungbaksanseong is nothing more than a South Korean idiom, and I think because it indirectlty applies to the U.S., it should be added to Wikitionary (as well as being kept here, for the above reasons). Leonard(Bloom) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline is here. The wording is: "Spanning at least a year. This is meant to filter out words that may appear and see brief use, but then never be used again. The one-year threshold is somewhat arbitrary, but appears to work well in practice." SilkTork *YES! 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep MB Castle has much historic value in korea. In addition, korean newspaper and TV news program use this word. -- LuciusValens 02:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen as neologism for now. I might change my tune if some new sources could be unearthed (e.g. if the NYT reference mentioned earlier could be unearthed; I couldn't find it). If deleted, of course, there should be no prejudice against its recreation if down the road a bit the neologism turns out to have some legs beyond this one isolated instance. Ford MF (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Choe Sang-hun (2008-06-12). "An Anger in Korea Over More Than Beef". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-23. Here, the NYT reference. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be a total dummy, but I don't see mention of this word anywhere in the article. The barricades are mentioned, but there is no mention of a special barricade word that erupted from the demonstrations. Ford MF (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Choe Sang-hun (2008-06-12). "An Anger in Korea Over More Than Beef". New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-23. Here, the NYT reference. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just because this word was made up recently does not qualify it for deletion. It still happened in history, and even if it is not so well known, it is still notable. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a lineReview Me! 11:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually that does qualify it for deletion. The inclusion criteria for nelogisms is pretty clear, with the reliable source criteria for neologisms telling us that
- "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."
Article also fails inclusion criteria for structures. The word might merit a mention in an article about the protests but as for a redirect, this seems like a highly unlikely search term in the English language Wikipedia; the Korean Wiki is a better place for this (anyone know the status of that article). I would also disagree that the protests are in any way notable as well. People on the peninsula have been regularly and frequently petitioning their government for redress of grievances in a most enthusiastic manner since the armistice. P.J. O'Rourke has written about the ubiquity of protests in the ROK and Larry Bond has even used them as a plot device. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Your last four sentence show very inappropriate scornful tone against not only the protest but also South Korea, and too obviously you don't know the current ongoing situation in South Korea as degrading it. You're assertive for your claim with no source. I don't know who you're, but how do we confirm your essay right? That kind of attitude does not earn your claim plausible or any respect for yourself. Cheers --Caspian blue (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s Who are Larry Bond and P.J. O'Rourke? They might be notable in one country, but not in the world, so if you want to take examples, well search and show some good ones. --Caspian blue (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Caspian, didn't mean to come off sounding "scornful". My statement is quite clear, in that there have been regular protests in the ROK since the end of the Great Fatherland Liberation War. O'Rourke and Bond are both authors who have written about the ubiquity and regularity of Korean protests. That is, however, another topic for another day. The topic at hand is this particular article about a Korean neologism applied to a structure built at a particular protest. Here is Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for nelogisms and here is Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for structures; this article fails to meet the standard established for either subject. The references provided by others here also fail to bolster the article's case because they only use the neologism in question, they are not reliable sources about the neologism as required by Wikipedia's reliable source criteria for neologisms. As for what I do or do not know about the situation in Korea and wether I am "degrading" it or not, please assume good faith. In fact, I have spent several years on and around the Z throughout my professional career and do maintain a working knowledge of Korean affairs (I certainly would not call myself an expert but I am smarter than the average bear.) Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.