:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 01:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]
delete: Page has been superseded and is no longer needed. perfectblue 16:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
tried to redirected to Break (music); page was moved back; propose merge or deletion John Reaves 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Break (music) (already seems to have been merged) unless someone convinces me that these are vastly different concepts. --- RockMFR 00:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Break (music). Article is more of a shorter version of that than its own article. —The Great Llamamoo? 00:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect - I am ok with a merge.redirect for this article. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom. Though there could be a semantic distinction the concepts are too closely linked. --Dhartung | Talk 16:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per nom, as above. I could support Keep (possible as a stub) if and only if some very strong evidence that these two concepts are very different is presented. Perel 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original editor of this page posted this on the article talk, I've left them a note about this page being the best place to discuss this right now - pasting in what they had to say below: (Perel 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Please notice and read this clarification of my assertion
The article on Breaks itself makes the point that breakdown and break are distinct. Has anybody read it??? What is missed here by those recommending to move is that hip hop would not have developed from breaks alone: they are simply too short to use for the purpose intended in hip hop music. Only an extremely skilled DJ cutting at lightning speed could use breaks and not breakdown sections! It had to be the breakdown sections which were used, else the hip hop era could not feasibly have begun until after the era of digital audio, capiche??If this is accepted, then Breakdown Section becomes the parent concept of hip hop musical culture and must have unique placement to avoid screwing up the whole lineage. Also, I can elaborate on breakdown sections and I'm only one user of the Wiki. (see the artist Lime page for some further ideas which can be placed in breakdown section, there are far more I assure you, such as dance records without noticable breakdown sections, breakdown sections which themselves became SONGS (Ride on Time by Black Box and Rapper's Delight come to mind right off the cuff). I am frustrated because the people who want to mess with this language simply don't understand it and yet are voting for deletion less than a day after i posted this, in fact someone wanted to delete it right away! C'mon people, how about we all LEARN something from the WIKI! I am sorry for the tone but this is my first editing dispute and I am incredibly frustrated by the lack of advocates and the haste of my opponents. I thank you all for your consideration and for Wiki-ing in the first place.--Tednor 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to French phonology. Both articles are generally about the same thing, but French pronunciation is much messier and is unsourced. —The Great Llamamoo? 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Llama man ("merge" only applies if there is non-duplicated content, of course). Newyorkbrad 01:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. The last two sections (stress and misc) are quite useful and should be kept. Ultra-Loser[ T ] [ C ] 02:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge non-duplicate content and then redirect - CheNuevara 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge but don't see why this is taken to AfD. The article already had an undisputed ((mergeto)) tag since 13 August 2006. --LambiamTalk 07:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just used to nominating things for deletion. But you're right, the merge tag is undisputed (I put it there in the first place). Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 08:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This doesn't belong here. Mackensen(talk) 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of common phrases in constructed languages[edit]
Article was created to parallel list of common phrases in various languages, which has been nominated for deletion twice. After the most recent nomination, that page's scope has changed to linguistic (genetic) comparison (although this is a dubious venture in itself) since Wikipedia is not a place for instruction manuals or user and travel guides. Constructed languages cannot be meaningfully compared in the same way since they have no natural genetic history. The page also lacks cited sources, making the page a mix of unverified material and/or original research. Introductory guides to the constructed languages presented is better suited in their respective articles not in a list of 10-15 "phrases" (most of which are actually just words). Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 01:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with all of the above reasons. This is an article we should have. --- RockMFR 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of them? So you're saying that Wikipedia is a place for instruction guides, that this page has nothing to do with the other page, that both articles are heavily sourced, and that constructed languages have genetic relationships? Or are you just exagerating? Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I'm ever on Star Trek, I can consult this article and speak eight phrases to the Kling-Ons. Wavy G 05:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random collection of phrases. Better for Wiktionary? Punkmorten 11:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete random and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 13:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not cite reliable sources - not opposed to keeping iff they're added. WilyD 14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A valuable sampler, and a companion to the list of common phrases in various languages. Claims that this belong in a dictionary or contains "how to" information strike me as fairly spurious; never seen a dictionary with this kind of information. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A collection of how-to guides arbitrarily compiled into a single article. -- Alan McBeth 15:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the nominator has a point, the article could be edited to group the languages based on what languages they are modelled on. (and how's that for a piece of broken English huh) --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - random junk. MrHarman 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The languages can be grouped into international auxiliary languages and fictional languages, and compared. Constructed languages are a controversial minority interest, and there is a risk that the article could end up being deleted for that reason. I agree that this article should be made more encylopedic. Matt 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Matt. Unique attempts at doing somethinga little different should be encouraged.DGG 00:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that called original research? This sort of thing would be more appropriate at Wiktionary. Despite Smerdis' claim to the contrary, there are dictionaries that do translate phrases. They're called phrasebooks. Ƶ§œš¹[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I may not be a real member of wikipedia, but I do know that some of these are valuable. For example, Lojban has an ISO code.71.107.18.245 04:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an indiscriminant collection of information. As the nominator says this kind of information is better presented in articles on the individual languages (or closely related groups of them). Eluchil404 09:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (info has now been re-added into the [arent article, so nothing will be lost). Proto::► 10:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary list. There's already a category of the same name, and none of the people on this list have articles, which makes me question if those people are truly "notable" as the article contends. fuzzy510 01:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've now wikified all the names - several names do have articles already, some of them inarguably notable. Bwithh 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expand Alumni lists are more useful in some ways than alumni categories - more easily customizable for sorting and writing summary notes, and easier to manage and expand. I find alumni categories much more unwieldy to use. This list needs expanding and proper sorting, but there's nothing wrong with the page per se. Several names already have articles. Bwithh 01:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I generally look with disfavor on list articles such as this, believing that the items therein found are properly comprised by a category (here, for instance, Category:University of San Francisco alumni) and that those for whom biographical entries cannot reasonably be expected to exist ought not to merit inclusion in an enumeration of alumni (such that the preferring of a category to a list should not result in the loss of any encyclopedic content), but it seems well settled that lists such as this are properly in mainspace (toward which, see, e.g., the existence of Category:Alumni by university in the United States, which includes better than 200 articles of identical form); if a consensus ought to develop to the contrary, the discussion relative to such issue ought not to take place at a singular/isolated AfD. Joe 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that someone is verifiably an alumnus, being described as such in sources other than straight directories of alumni, but doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. In such cases, the person doesn't warrant a separate article of xyr own, but can nonetheless be mentioned on a list, without xyr name being linked. Uncle G 11:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to [[University_of_San_Francisco#Notable_alumni] This is where the notable alumni belong. It's not like the USF article is too long to include this list. Copysan 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge per CopySan. If the list gets considerably longer, remake the page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)
Keep and expand per Bwithh. See User:VegaDark/Sandbox for an example of what this list could look like if enough time was spent on it. VegaDark 10:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
THat is very nice. Good job. But I don't think USF's famous alumni article is long enough to warrant that kind of treatment at this time. If it were expanded, then yes, a separate page is perfectly fine. I'd rather merge first, and recreate when the section gets too long, rather than leaving a short page there and hoping people expand it into a proper page length. Copysan 06:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CopySan. The list is short, and there's room for it in the U article. No separate article justified at this point. Nick Graves 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CopySan. It seems to work for most other schools. Montco 06:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I merged the ones listed here back into the USF article. Not sure why there was no overlap between the two lists. ~ trialsanderrors 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete What is meant, is a list of USF alumni that people here happen to have added, and there is no evidence that is was added comprehensively or critically. Unless we decide to locate and include list of all the thousands, there is no particular reason to think that the people here are as a group more notable than any other simililarly sized group. Cateogory has the advantage that the ones in there are notable enough to be written about here.DGG 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant to category. Notable people should have articles and non-notable ones shouldn't be included on lists like this. Eluchil404 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per preceding comments. WMMartin 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The article subject completely fails notability standard. -- Rydra Wong 04:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Húsönd 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The software does not appear to be notable, and the article is unsourced. MSN addons are made all the time, and the article doesn't say why this one is special. JDtalk 01:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This addon is not notable enough to write an article about it.--Meno25 02:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is certainly no claim of notability. WVhybrid 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 04:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MSN is notable but this is not Joe Jklin(TC) 09:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SOFTWARE. Clearly a non-notable MSN add-on. Might also be confused with the MSN shell. Michaelas10(Talk) 12:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Tyson Moorees 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear notable. It may be a personal favorite of a few people, but it does not appear widespread. --Willscrlt 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient independent sources to make it notable.-- danntmTC 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If any is actually relevent it can be merged. ReverendG 02:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. El_C 11:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Uncle G has salvaged another one. Good job! B.Wind 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Started out as an ADVERT; can never be more than a DICDEF. -- Satori Son 01:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As now appears obvious, I was badly mistaken. Kudos to Uncle G for the outstanding research. -- Satori Son 14:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - concerns met. MER-C 03:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Joe Jklin(TC) 09:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this article belongs on Wikipedia. It has some information other than a blatant definition. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is substantial now and has a lot of room for improvement. -- Alan McBeth 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, substantial improvement. Good work. --Dhartung | Talk 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this goes beyond a dicdef and is well-sourced. Seraphimblade 19:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a good start on an article. Nick Graves 22:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clearly improved from its original state; now quite encyclopedic. Heimstern Läufer 23:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has been improved. ReverendG 02:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a verifiable national election candidate, councillor and owner of two major political bogs. Trollderella 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm looking at the article's sources and trying to figure out where the non-trivial coverage in independent sources happened. I'm not seeing it in any external links from this article. Does this guy have such coverage? The article seems like original research to me. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability. Nick Graves 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Guardian? National websites listing county councellors? I don't think those are trivial. Trollderella 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Response: The bits in the Guardian and Councillorsuk are minimal, going no further than listing the man's name with his address and some election statistics. That's trivial. The rest of the references are from blogs and podcasts. Find a couple newspaper articles about this guy and I'll reconsider. Nick Graves 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Some election statistics"? It's 'trivial' that he held a council seat and stood for a major party in a general election? We must not be using the same definition of the word. Trollderella 05:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The place I know to find a definition of what "non-trivial" means in this context is Wikipedia:Notability, where we read: "Triviality is a measure of the depth of content contained in the published work, exclusive of mere directory entry information, and how directly it addresses the subject." The sources in question directly address the subject, but the information we gain from them is quite close to the "non-trivial" line, as I see it. We learn what office Mr. Hilton holds, and that he ran for Parliament in 2005, and lost. That's it. I don't see any evidence that his various blogs are notable, seeing as no independent source mentions them. We could write a very short verifiable article on this guy. Is there a good merge target, if merging would be better than deletion, seeing as we do have some verifiable information? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick Graves. MrHarman 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above--Paukrus 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not for being a councillor or failed election candidate but because he is behind two major political blogs that dominate the pro-Labour UK blog world, and is setting the bar on new developments in political blogs in the UK, particularly with Message Space. The notoriety could be found by the coverage that Message Space's launch received in UK newspapers, for instance.Martín (saying/doing) 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In that connection, Here's a reference. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A major-party candidate for a national legislature is notable. JamesMLanetc 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with JamesMLane that major-party candidates for national legislatures are often notable, but not when they are standing for a seat which they are obviously going to lose. Opposition candidates in safe seats are generally either local people of no note otherwise, or up-and-coming wannabes (like Hilton). In a few years time this man could be influential and more well-known, but then so could anyone. Presumption of future fame should not count as 'notability'. Nick Graves is right about his coverage in the guardian - it is ridiculously pitiful - one line reading "Not currently an MP." He does not even seem to have a presence in his local press as a Councillor, so clearly he cannot be too important there either. Finally, the article about "RecessMonkey" was already merged with Blog after a decision that it was insufficiently notable to merit an article by itself. DrKiernan 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to add to the above post - Hilton stood in Canterbury in the 2005 election, and the seat has been solidly Conservative ever since it became a single-member constituency in the late 1800s. Never elected any other party candidate since - and in fact has the record for the longest one-party representation. Gretnagod 15:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not elected = not notable. (Radiant) 09:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. El_C 11:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been nominated and deleted before. This article has been transwikid to Wiktionary. James084 01:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as recreation. If it's the same as the old article, (we need an admin here) speedy delete per CSD A4. Ultra-Loser[ T ] [ C ] 02:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, tagged for speedy to determine status as a repost. MER-C 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD A4 Joe Jklin(TC) 09:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki (if applicable)- I believe G4 isn't applicable, because on the last nomination, it was deleted as a dicdef, probably meaning there wasn't much substance. Thus the article isn't essentially the same as the last one. Besides, it's good information... for wiktionary. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 23:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki if possible.--Meno25 00:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ReverendG 02:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I am somewhat confused. This article has already been transwikid to Wiktionary; however, there are a couple of votes here to Transwiki. Is this a proposal to transwiki to another project? What am I missing? James084 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete as it is already in wiktionary, and isn't an artical of enciclopedic value.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedied, nonsenseOpabinia regalis 05:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of nonsense about Texas having nuclear weapons. -- Scotteiπ 02:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G3 per WP:VANDAL, Silly vandalism - Creating joke or hoax articles.... is vandalism. Ain't no nukes owned by the State of Texas, pardner, they have to settle for having a National Guard like the rest of the states. Tubezone 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. If not speedied, then delete it for completely failing WP:V. -- Scientizzle 02:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. MER-C 02:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: This article is really not needed.--Meno25 03:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, this is nonsense. Rhobite 03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. So tagged. Sr13 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Prod" itself asserts this is not a policy: Nice suggestion, but no value. Now you drop a guideline: Possible conflict of interest with what? You can't just just drop templates on pages and run without leaving specifics! Don't you read the policy? You want more editors on this article? What are you trying to do, save 128 bytes of disk space? This article is not a self promotion. This is a cool program that needs mentioning. This is not vanity. It sure would be nice to know how to defend the article when you just use a BOT to drop templates on pages that show up on the WikiAdmin monitor, but you really should give some specifics. You did the same thing with your PROD template. I'm thinking "overactive admin" here. Come on, what's your hard-on for? Drop that BOT and actually type! // Brick Thrower 04:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beta software with no third party reviews and 5000 downloads from Sourceforge ain't notable per WP:SOFTWARE. There's a mention of it under Technical analysis software, which is enough. Tubezone 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete By the article's discussion and also via google searches for "merchant of venice" "computer program" it would seem to be non-notable. Furthermore, the name space could be equally well used for the commercially available Merchant of Venice computer game. Most of the google hits appear to be for computerized versions of Shakespeare's play, though of note is the first entry--the article up for debate.--eleuthero 17:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an example of why WP attracts spam and self promotion. WP has a Google PageRank of 8, and typically will come out close to the top of any search for article names it contains. Tubezone 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also borderline spam (just because it's open source doesn't mean it can't be spam). Probably not bad enough for speedy, but not good enough to keep. I'm a huge fan of open source; run 100% (except for games). But Wikipedia's standards are Wikipedia's standards, and this doesn't meet 'em. Xtifrtälk 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete If it's a cool program write something about its merits somewhere, so we dont have to decide by guesswork. DGG 00:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable, self-published. all page author contribs are links in other articles to this book. Akriasas 03:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BK completely. No notability for the book asserted. The title gets lets than 80 total and only 25 unique G-hits, which include WP and many mirrors. -- Kicking222 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment I just went through every Google hit: one is a review from a non-notable source, and every single other hit is either a WP mirror or an e-tailer selling the book. -- Kicking222 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm going through other articles and removing links to this book, at it is nothing more than linkspam. Someone else can surely feel free to help me out. -- Kicking222 03:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability concerns Joe Jklin(TC) 09:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Nick Graves 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to read the book though Ppoi307 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, aside from the false-positive of being the father of someone else with an article (that article being up for deletion as well). I didn't CSD this, since his son's article has attracted a defender and I felt it would be mean to just whack a db-bio on this one. That said, Google's never heard of him in Latin script, and I don't have any great hope that someone who can search in Cyrillic or anything else will bring up much more. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete With apologies to the defender of these articles, this guy has no asserted importance whatsoever. Even if this person's son was Bill Gates, that fact alone wouldn't make him the least bit notable. -- Kicking222 03:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a consulting firm. A Google search brings up no independent non-trivial sources- everything is either a press release from them or it is written by their business partners ("Winterberry Group is a consulting firm affiliated with us..." ) or a trivial mention where they are quoted once. Google news brings up one trivial hit. Nothing on Lexisnexis, and Find Articles brings up a press release and something about a shrub. Anyway, I believe it doesn't meet WP:CORP or verifiability seeing as it hasn't been the subject of multiple, non-trivial independent publishings. Wafulz 03:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1 news ghit, trivial mention. No recent coverages. MER-C 05:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is advertisement written (I suspect) by company employee. Glendoremus 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Nick Graves 22:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. MrHarman 01:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be a hoax. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything from a quick Google search confirming its existence, and parts of the article are outright ludicrous, so I'll safely assume that this is a hoax. -- Kicking222 03:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable invented sport. Nick Graves 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and, to a lesser extant, Tubezone. ReverendG 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was history merge. Chick Bowen 17:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination for an anon. "This is an unnecessary article, and not a real disambiguation page 132.205.93.32 03:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)" --Wafulz 03:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless disambiguation page due to its title. Why would I need to disambiguate the two? MER-C 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no disambiguation on this page - they are two separate objects with distinct names. (aeropagitica) 05:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the article was split, how should GFDL be handled here (as in "the edit history should be preserved")? Shouldn't it be history-merged with one of the child articles? ColourBurst 06:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If history-merging is appropriate, I suggest merging with NGC 1532, the larger of the two galaxies and the primary topic of the older version of NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. Dr. Submillimeter 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NGC 1531 to preserve edit history (GFDL) or do some sort of history merge (sysops plz). --- RockMFR 07:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's already been a redirect. It was nominated for deletion with the result of being turned into a disambig. -- JLaTondre 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was originally the page for both NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. I split the page into two separate articles. Afterwards, I needed to decide on what to do with NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. I first turned it into a redirect to NGC 1532 as a short-term solution, and then nominated the redirect for deletion. The nomination failed for two reasons: other editors thought that the edit history should be kept, and other editors thought that external links may still lead to NGC 1531 and NGC 1532. Afterwards, it was turned into a disambiguation page. I honestly do not think that the page or the edit history is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand- the edit history MUST be kept. --- RockMFR 14:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could you please point me to a Wikipedia policy page that explains this? At the very least, I would like to understand other people's point of view on keeping this page. This may also be a problem in the future, as I may split several other articles on pairs of galaxies. Dr. Submillimeter 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The history needs to be kept for both articles. Merging history with just NGC 1532 would create a GFDL issue for NGC 1531 as there would be no record there of who contributed some of the original content that it came from. That could be remedied by coping the history page to the talk page of both articles or by merging to 1532 and making a note at 1531's talk page. But why bother? This isn't hurting anything. -- JLaTondre 13:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does the edit history need to be kept with both articles? I don't think so - I believe under GFDL we can merge the edit history to one article and be fine ... I'm not a lawyer, though. WilyD 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Content was moved from the original article to both articles. If we just merge to one, there is nothing indicating in the second article that Submillimeter wasn't the sole author of the content he added. I believe the history of each article needs to be able to be recreated as they can be exported individually. However, I'm no lawyer either. I know we have worse GFDL issues then this one, but I just don't see any harm in leaving this page. -- JLaTondre 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta keep: Ok, here's a plan. Revert the split, delete the two new articles. Move this title to NGC 1531 and then re-split the article leaving a reference in the history of NGC 1532. That is how this split should have happened... is it too late to do it right now? ---J.S(T/C) 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just merge the history into one of the articles, and retroactively note that the other article was split from it? 132.205.45.206 00:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware there isn't a function to merge histories. (because then you would have edits not making any sense... etc) + reply
Comment - What about the material that currently exists at NGC 1531 and NGC 1532? Those two articles contain referenced information, whereas NGC 1531 and NGC 1532 contained unreferenced information before the split. Moreover, the two separate articles currently contain different information; the infobox data and the "See also" links are different for the two entries, and NGC 1532 contains an additional section that should not belong in NGC 1531. I would prefer to see this material preserved instead of the edit history. However, if both the material and edit history can be preserved, then I would find the plan satisfactory. Dr. Submillimeter 11:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I left a notice at the Administrators' Noticeboard about this weird situation. I also wonder if this demonstrates that Wikipedia needs a "Requested split" mechanism. Dr. Submillimeter 12:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just found that Wikipedia has a WP:SPLIT. The information at WP:SPLIT, however, did not address the issues brought up here. Dr. Submillimeter 12:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:52, 7 December 2006 (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. El_C 12:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is comprised entirely of unencyclopedic fiction. John254 04:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not[e] that all of this is a statement about a war in a videogame [...] this is the explanation of the Elf Wars that hapenned during the timeline of Megaman X(which is a videogame) of which only few informations were left behind by Capcom for north Americans". Wikipedia is neither a game guide nor an indiscriminate collection of information. MER-C 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Linuxaurus 10:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified and indiscriminate information.-- danntmTC 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not a source for fan fiction Ppoi307 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fanfiction. ReverendG 03:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted as a non-notable biography of a musician, WP:BIO and WP:Music both refer. (aeropagitica) 05:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 05:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article concerns a distinctly non-notable person; the only assertions of notability are unreferenced, and apparently original research. John254 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete db-bio. Replacing the wrongly-removed tag. Danny Lilithborne 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable per by himself per the guidelines in WP:MUSIC -Nv8200ptalk 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bassist in two popular bands. --Oakshade 07:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is credited for co-writing music while in the band Therion (See the album Lepaca Kliffoth for credit), which is a band that satisfies WP:MUSIC. Thus the subject of the article meets criterion in WP:MUSIC for composers and lyricists, "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above". JGardner 11:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for both above. It's a stub for someone that truly deserves an article.B.Wind 23:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand - if not we will be here again in a month Alf photoman 13:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I'm not happy about the WP:MUSIC policy cited by JGardner above. If not for this procedural issue I'd be voting to delete on grounds of inadequate notability - writing a song sung by a notable band is not the same as writing a notable song, and so far as I can tell this second possibility has not been clearly shown. WMMartin 17:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not really an "inclusionist" so to speak, but is his position as a high-level administrator at a major university a notable feature? He is not a random untenured junior faculty member.--Dmz5 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know what your definition of major is but being the oldest west of the Mississippi river and the 4th largest Jesuit university in the country makes it very notable and it is very respected.--Joe Jklin(TC) 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being Provost of a major university is notable. --Oakshade 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs to be expanded a bit but seems to be a notable bio Joe Jklin(TC) 09:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability concerns. No evidence that Joe Weixlmann has been the subject of two or more secondary reliable source. (let me know if you find some and I'll revisit my vote) ---J.S(T/C) 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment it seems to me that the lack of 2 or more additional references is not necessary if the person in question is notable at face value. That is to say, if through some stretch of the imagination the President of Cornell did not have 2 secondary sources discussing him, he is still the president of Cornell and deserves an entry. This does not address the question of whether the provost of a university is inherently notable.--Dmz5 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand, else we will have this discussion again shortly Alf photoman 13:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Alf photoman's argument above is extraordinarily weak. I don't mind having discussions several times, if that's how long it takes to get us to a useful consensus. Far better that than mindless inclusionism to avoid conflict. However, with this particular article I think we have a clear Keep per Oakshade's point. WMMartin 17:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Deprodded a long while back. No indication of notability via WP:WEB or otherwise. KchaseT 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the archive's creator, Cousin Creep, also has an article, although I don't think it's an AFD candidate. Electrolite 06:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete both. No prejudice about articles being created when reliably sourced information about who is actually bidding is available, which, as bids are approved by the appropriate nation up to 15 years before the date of the games, which will probably be some time around next winter for the 2022 Winter Games, and around 2009 for the 2024 Summer one. Proto::► 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found speedy-tagged, but somehow this was already afd'd and kept with no consensus here in April, partly on the basis that the 2024 article was kept here in March. Honestly, this is all terrible crystal-balling and both articles contain almost nothing but unsourced speculation (every single sentence in the 2022 article has a ((fact)) tag!). Recreate these in 5-10 years, not needed now. Opabinia regalis 05:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Maybe in a few years these can be recreated. TJ Spyke 05:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as total speculation; these articles can say nothing of interest for at least the next five years. Let them be recreated when bidding cities have been confirmed and not before. (aeropagitica) 05:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the 2024 article actually has citations and some relatively meaningful discussion. The Olympics-unlike, say, the next Steven Spielberg movie-do get put into motion 15 years or more before the fact and articles like this should be dealt with as such. It isn't really ridiculous crystal balling. If someone wants to clean up the 2022 article, please do so, but Keep them both.--Dmz5 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it is crystal-balling and mind-reading.
If the world explodes in 2021, none of this will happen. If it hasn't happened yet, it's inherently counter-factual. That kind of defies "fact".
The fact that a country is considering a bid is not really relevant. Countries which make bids may be relevant, but considering a bid is not particularly of interest, and only in the loosest sense verifiable.
Once real, relevant information comes out, it can be posted. - CheNuevara 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate your opinion, but I don't understand why a sourced statement that a city is considering a bid is not worth including here. If the world blows up tomorrow then there won't be any movies released in December but we still have articles on movies that haven't been released yet. --Dmz5 07:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because saying "such-and-such is considering an Olympic bid" isn't really saying much at all. Events are relevant; thoughts are not. If they actually make bids, then that's relevant. Until they do, there's no real information here, even if that lack of information is well-sourced. If the world blows up tomorrow, then movies scheduled for release in December will still have been written, shot, and cut, and that is the information which goes into their articles. Until there are actual events related to future Olympics -- that is, until actual bids are made, there is no real meaningful content to these articles. - CheNuevara 17:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dmz5. Somehow, someone actually managed to put some helpful encyclopedic material in these articles. Helpful being the key word. And the words "if the world explodes in 2021" don't work with crystalballing, because then WP could never write about anything past, um, December 1, 2006. I am going to include an exact copy from WP:NOT, because I think it's relevant here, and these articles clearly pass these criteria: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:14, December 1, 2006 (UTC)Changed below.
So, then, you think 2022 and 2024 are more similar to the 2012 Olympics (whose location and schedule are known) than to the 2032 Olympics? Sounds to me like this sort of crystal-balling is exactly what your quote excludes. Opabinia regalis 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the 2022 Olympics never happen, if we get close enough that actual events surface, ie, that actual bids are made, then that is relevant. Making a bid is significant, but that hasn't happened yet. But the statements as they stand in the articles now are inherently logically counterfactual. - CheNuevara 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Information about future olympic events and possible host cities is known FAR in advance. --- RockMFR 07:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think many people don't quite understand how far in advance the Olympics are planned- when Cincinnati, Ohio, was considering a bid for 2012, they published plans for venue locations approximately 15 years in advance. --- RockMFR 08:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out that 2024 seems to be extremely well sourced. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still contains unsourced crystal balling though, in the Greek, Australian and Kiwi bids. MER-C 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should remove those parts, right? Or source them (it couldn't be too hard). Not delete the whole article. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2022 as pure speculation. Undecided on the other. Punkmorten 08:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2024. The article has a future year in its title, but the contents are about events already in progress that are getting verifiable secondary source attention. BCoates 09:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article cites no reliable sources - if some can be found then maybe keep. WilyD 14:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Changed vote to Merge due to the references (see below) - I was just reading about Crystal Balling earlier today, and this is practically the text book example given in the article (and here I thought someone was just trying to be silly!). --Willscrlt 15:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, pure speculation as to where it will be. We could just as easily justify such a crystal ball article about the next 100,000 years of Olympics. Keep articles which have coverage about the competition by cities to get the event. The 2016 Summer Olympics bids, for example, are going on on the part of various cities. But not 2022, 2026, 2030, etcWinter Olympics. Wait until at least 2 (i.e. multiple) reliable and verifiable independent sources can be cited to show that cities have submitted proposals to the committee.Edison 16:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It looks like the person who made this spent a bit of time looking for things for this, let it be kept
Keep the 2024 article, which adequately documents current speculation about this upcoming event. Delete 2022 article, unless someone finds more than one source to document its contents. Nick Graves 22:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not Wikinews. Until the official decision is made as to the site and/or scheduling of the games, an article is premature. All of the contents, worthwhile reading they may be, can be included at the proper time. B.Wind 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a future Olympics is definatly should be allowed on wikipedia Ppoi307 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MrHarman 01:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific, MrHarman? As I said above, WP:NOT allows for source-able future events. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal ball. ReverendG 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When I first saw this, I was thinking delete. But then looked around for some sources and found some, so I suggest keeping this. --Aude (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd normally vote delete for this as well, but both articles contain verifiable press coverage, even if we're talking 15 years or more down the line. A few of the listed possible bids, however, need better sourcing. But both have enough to justify keeping. I would, however, support a "Future Olympic Bids" article in lieu of individual games articles. 23skidoo 03:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a "Future Olympic bids" article would solve the problem at hand- there would still be debate over which future games deserve articles. --- RockMFR 06:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles into a new "Future Olympic Bids" article per 23skidoo's suggestion. --Willscrlt 06:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a faint bit of speculation, but both articles include reliable sources regarding an event for which planning is well underway in many quarters. Alansohn 22:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(ish) - serious crystal-balling, not to mention a bit of original research to boot. Not only do we not know who will host it, we don't even know who will be bidding yet. Speculating about which countries might be bidding is exactly that - speculation, which is explicitly not allowed. Chrischeesewhine 03:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, we shouldn't have an article on the 2008 presidential elections, because we're only speculating on who might run. Barak Obamamight run; Hillary Clinton and John McCainmight run. But the WP:NOT section specifically says this is OK. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bzzzt, Straw man! The 2008 US presidential elections is the next US presidential election. The 2022 Winter and 2024 Summer Olympics are not the next Olympic games. They are next-but-three Winter and next-but-four Summer games. My argument is that these events are too far in the future for us to reliably know anything about them other than the fact that they're pencilled in. In fact, if you look at WP:NOT#CBALL, it actually states that the next election and the next Olympics are appropriate topics, but that anything much further down the line than that is explicitly not appropriate. Chrischeesewhine 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough, but that's not what your original argument said. It said, exactly, "Speculating about which countries might be bidding is exactly that - speculation, which is explicitly not allowed." And, for your second argument, if I've read WP:NOT properly it says that future events are only not allowed because they're non-sourceable - "because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." It says nothing about being too far in the future. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, I have none. That specific one should be removed from the article. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You want me to move on to the rest of the bids one-by-one? Auckland 2024. Philadelphia 2024. Vaduz 2022. Quebec 2022. Cape Town 2020. Minneapolis 2020. Sofia 2018. Denver 2018. The sourcing problem is not something that is solved by removing specific information here - it is endemic in all of the far-future Olympic articles. Let the IOC at least figure out next year who's getting 2014, and then maybe we can start thinking about writing about it. Chrischeesewhine 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you may have a point. That article on Philadelphia was 100% conjecture. The only decent one appeared to be Copenhagen (one link was broken, and the other in French, which I don't know). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, per above discussion. The provided links, except for Copenhagen, are purely conjectural. And one bid does not an article make. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell y'all what, since I'm currently rampaging against futurecruft (and probably inviting charges of "rampant deletionism" by doing so), I propose instead just redirecting these articles somewhere. Note that my comment of delete remains, as I specifically oppose the merger of any of the speculation into the target pages. How's that sound to people for now? Chrischeesewhine 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Patstuart. JoshuaZ 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Please explain the reasons we should delete the article. --- RockMFR 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. Their is sufficient verifiable source material.PalX 09:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Please explain the reasons we should keep the article. Chrischeesewhine 09:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. The reason is that information will increasingly become available as the place is discussed and then decided, and we will then need somewhere to put it. The discussion of where to put it is notable, for such a truly major event. We might as well have the article now. It is not futurecruft because it is not speculation that it will take place. DGG 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. 2024 article looks fully sourced to me. No crystal ball problem becauuse planning for these events exists now. --JJay 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JJay, perhaps you'd like to read my comments above. I originally voted strong keep, but when I checked out the sources, all but one turned out to be fluff. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. They are all mostly good. And there are a lot more available through google. Beyond that the topic is entirely valid. --JJay 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is almost entirely OR speculation. A load of crystal balls, in fact. WMMartin 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a non-notable radio personality - see the two ghits. The article has not changed at all besides a cleanup and a linkless tag being added since its creation. Fails WP:BIO. His only claim to fame is that he's been around for 36 years, but I don't think that's as important as WP:BIO. Ultra-Loser[ T ] [ C ] 05:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Copysan 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd recommend not using google hits for this sort of thing - it's doubtful you'd find much information about a radio DJ from 25 years ago on the web anywhere. More likely to find references in magazines, newspapers, RADIO, etc.... --- RockMFR 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are irrelevant for work prior to the Internet, but if he were involved in any station promotions over the past ten years, his name would have popped up more than two times. But no Google links for his work in Orlando and Jackson in the past ten years indicate to me (and I was in radio for over a decade - I know the trade) that he has been pretty much low-keying it and thus not making himself notable (contrast this with, say, Rick Shaw, who is truly deserving of an article)[2]; therefore, delete per WP:BIO. B.Wind 23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable radio personality. Just because he's gone "town to town, up and down the dial" doesn't make him Johnny Fever. --Dhartung | Talk 16:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. ReverendG 03:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no mention of the code having been adopted by anyone, and the official site's members page has no entries. Likewise, a Google search doesn't turn up much. The article is well-written, but I don't think its subject is notable enough yet for Wikipedia. I tagged with ((importance)), which later got removed (see article's talk). Electrolite 06:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete African code and the African Code redirect per nom Copysan 06:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - borders on SPAM after a peek at the organization's site.B.Wind 23:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems a sham, but the nom is right. ReverendG 03:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep, the african code is referenced in pan-africanism and is relevant, i think the members arent listed because it isnt really a membership thing, just a common ethos. but go ahead deleted it because racist democracy rules here, u can next add the delete tag to every pan-african thread.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 06:10, December 2, 2006
Please remember WP:CIVIL. Anyways, the complaint is that "African code" is not notable because it has not been referenced in any non-trivial sources. If you could find some please do, and I bet many of the people here will change their recommendations Copysan 21:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I some how doubt that, do u realize the African code is mentioned in a few places and hence it became necessary to explain what it was a stub article. It is in Pan-Africanism so people reading that want to know what is it. I rememeber i added anti-African and that got deleted, yet Anti-everybody can live on Wikipedia, but it is in my imagination.--Halaqah 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No sources. --Lijnema 19:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, also OR. --Strothra 20:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 07:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - author already seems to be adding silliness to page. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 07:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best transwiki to wiktionary but doesn't even seem to be worth that Joe Jklin(TC) 09:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete limited range (i.e. Perth only) brand new colloquialism, does not deserve to be in Wiktionary and especially not here. SM247My Talk 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I live there and I hadn't heard of it until today. That's how obscure and non-notable this neologism is. MER-C 11:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems just to be a term used on a local radio show, a proto-protologism.-- danntmTC 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Catchphrase used on a Perth radio show which doesn't appear to have gained wider currency. Possibly worth a mention in the show's article. Capitalistroadster 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From Perth and never heard of the term. Nachoman-au 01:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, besides its only a variation of the common north English "cock" with the addition of the Australian "-o" (commo).--Grahamec 01:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it really shouldn't reference the article itself. ReverendG 03:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very localised neologism invented by a radio DJ's who's notability its itself questionable. Lankiveil 10:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. --Roisterer 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This looked fairly non-notable to me, but I don't know anything about soccer clubs in Ireland, so I thought I'd put it up for deletion to get some more expert opinions. Thus my vote is abstain, leaning towards delete. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, I have little knowledge too; but it is up to the article to established its own notability. This article doesn't, and neither does it cite. So pending these problems being resolved, definite delete. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: with work, it would be quite acceptable. It looks valid. Dfrg.msc1 . 2 . Editor Review 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not with that name, which I moved. Have you been able to verify the information? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyway, Dfrg, I had notability concerns more than anything, if that's what you're looking for. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. The only thing I can get out of Google is that the club exists. MER-C 07:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 08:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although there are no specific guidelines for what level a club needs to be at to be deemed notable in the Republic of Ireland, this one doesn't look equivalent to a "levels 1-10 in England" club (the league they play in doesn't even have an article) so delete. I've also discovered another club in the same league with an article so will AfD that one..... ChrisTheDude 12:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 05:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable. This is like the ping-pong game Busch canceled 6 months ago, without the press coverage. Furthermore, it is unverified material. I say delete. Diez2 06:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would do suggest Merge and redirect to Categories (game)except, that redirects to Categories (card game). I think that Categories (game) should be the main article and all the varients should be included in that article. because I put the information at Categories (card game) back at Categories (game) because there's nothing in the article indicating that it's played with cards. Otto4711 06:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Otto4711 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Presumably played by a bunch of friends who think this makes it important to the wider world. WMMartin 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it's unreferenced too. WMMartin 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The single reference is to a blog-like site that specializes in drinking games; this entry comes with the author attribution "This game was submitted by one of our eerily charismatic readers, Blair!" --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - listcruft; potentially infinite list; occult references in music does not necessarily imply occult beliefs on the part of the artists. —Hanuman Das 06:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the names listed are given much justification. It's also something of an arbitrary grab-bag of non-mainstream religious thinking called "occult." I mean shamanism? Does that mean any traditional musicians of the Ryukyuans or Mapuche are "occult." (Also if Keith Jarrett really is a follower of occultist G. I. Gurdjieff shouldn't he be here?)--T. Anthony 09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Linuxaurus 10:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. An essentially meaningless title, unless "occultism" figures in the music itself, in which case nigh every heavy metal band qualifies, regardless of whether the band members believe in that stuff; it's now a traditional theme. It might be more useful broken down into "Wiccan musicians" or "Scientologist musicians" or whatever belief system they practice. OTOH, I question whether it's right to call articles like this "unsourced" or "unverifiable" so long as a musician's beliefs are sourced and verified on their several pages; this is a compilation to assist browsers. At minimum, the article should discuss what the musicians believe. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's verifiable. I just think it's using "occult" in a vague, meaningless, catch-all way that's not very helpful. That could be fixed, but I'm not sure an unvague way of using the word "occult" is possible. If someone wants a List of Thelemite musicians, List of Wicca musicians, or List of Theosophist musicians I'd not object.--T. Anthony 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "occult" too vague a term. MakeRocketGoNow 19:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh, puh-lease. Do we need more unverifiable and silly lists here?? MrHarman 01:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, much too vague. I could endorse T. Anthony's last suggestion of some more specific lists, though. But I doubt if several of the names currently listed would verifiably qualify for any such list. (Unless having once written a song mentioning Greek Gods or Papa Legba counts.) Xtifrtälk 19:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like there are people in the New Age music and part of the folk scene who claim to be Wicca or Neo-Pagan. To be honest I kind of doubt the other ideas would work.--T. Anthony 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No sources presented. May be derived from a game Edison 06:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Go back to in the article history to the original text: "..Roman Battering rams were usually in the shape of a pentagonal prism. They were used for destroying big thinks such as walls or houses. They were immune to archery attack and very weak in defense against swordsman." and it is clearly either made up from scratch or from a game guide. Someone later tried to make it a little more factual, but still speculation. Wikipedia should not be a vehicle for propagating things someone made up, or to make speculation into fact to get mirrored and quoted.Edison 17:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - If the information is valid (and not just from a game), it should be preserved, but not as a separate entry. If it is not historically accurate, purge it. --Willscrlt 15:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - factual accuracy in dispute; doesn't seem there is anything worth salvaging; already a decent article on battering rams.Glendoremus 19:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Glendoremus. I don't believe there was anything unique about Roman technology here. --Dhartung | Talk 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, several reconstructions in European museums show that rams were improvised in situ Alf photoman 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep They did exist, they are described in military writing of the period. Encourage the editor to find sources/DGG 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2nd nomination: (previous nomination can be found here) This is about 2 lifeboats named after Charles Hargrave. 0 notability. That's flatly it. Diez2 06:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, too obscure and non-notable. MER-C 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability. Do not, as has been suggested, merge with Kingsdown, Kent as the entire article fails WP:V. Not to mention there's absolutely nothing to work with for a merge because there's no context; it just tells us that somewhere in Kingsdown there's a couple of lifeboats named after some Charles Hargrave guy. JGardner 11:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A guy pays to get his name on two boats--not notable (and not referenced). Glendoremus 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the boats were still around, it would be a different matter, but then there's the verifiability issue as well. I don't think that even the Charles Hargrave that lost three Congressional elections in California merits an article here, and he's more notable than two lifeboats.B.Wind 00:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sponsoring a lifeboat is certainly very laudable, but the information here can easily be incorporated into another article. A merge might lead to later problems given that there are other Charles Hargraves. DrKiernan 12:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, does not assert notability per WP:BAND. NawlinWiki 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per non-notable band and per WP:DUMB (yes, even if 50 people bought their album!). I counted 3 ghits, two from the same site. Sorry guys, you're just notable. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 10:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a local band, fails WP:MUSIC. You know, you could have just tagged it with ((db-bio)). Michaelas10(Talk) 12:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not ((db-band)) material, because the article asserts notability by saying what the band have recorded. MER-C 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I think that this is a speedy delete candidate as the article has no sources and references to back any of its assertions up; the band has no notable members; has not toured nationally; has not released albums or singles on either a major label or a major indie label; has had no chart success in any country and hasn't been featured in any mainstream music publication or other Journal of Record - all criteria in WP:Music. This is better off on Myspace until any of the above can be satisfied with reliable sources. Tagged thusly. (aeropagitica) 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable 1980s street gang or possible hoax. Prod Contested and tag removed by User:Catchpole. This article was created by single purpose accountHowmanylads. The article is incoherent, and the subject scores a total of 9 Ghits in Google archives, none of which relevant. 13 unique Ghits, none of the sources appear reliable. Ohconfucius 06:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incoherent, non-notable. Salad Days 19:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
is apparently a highly notable... DeleteDanny Lilithborne 20:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Tagged. --Dennisthe2 05:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but how about adding this information to the article instead of just the AfD? W.marsh 05:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of notability is presented in the sub-stub article. It should be expanded and referenced or deleted. Edison 07:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a speedy delete as WP:CSD A7, I don't see any real assertion of notability here other than being a popular local DJ. No references to anything that might establish notability, either. Tubezone 07:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about trying minimal diligency, my deletionist colleagues? `'mikkanarxi 07:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weeak keep. I don't understand notability of DJs. But this one seems visible, if he doesn't lie. Like, from his website:
His releases in 2004-2005
Randy Katana "One Solid Wave"
Number one on most Dutch dance charts. Also this track influenced the dance industry in such a way *the most trance tracks are now using a tribal beat instead of the usual "bass drum baseline back beat"
Randy Katana "In Silence"
Number one on most Dutch dance charts. First Dance smash on radio 538. Record of the year "www.Tranceaddict.com"
Randy Katana "Fancy Fair 2005"
Number one on most Dutch dance charts. Second Dance smash on radio 538. Reaching several commercial charts like Dutch top 100 nr. 43, Slam FM top 40 nr 8. Dutch top 50 nr. 43.
Weak keep. If assertions are true, he would indeed be notable in his field. I'd like to see some references though. --- RockMFR 08:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ditto, the guy gets 172,000 ghits, there shouldn't be any problems with the author drumming up getting enough references and assertions of notability to make this article float instead of flush. As it sits right now it just says he's a popular DJ, and there's like a kajillion popular DJ's that are NN. Tubezone 08:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If someone can find 2 or 3 reliable and verifiable independent sources and add them to the article that would justify keeping it. There is a reference section there, just waiting for some such references to be added, such as Dutch version of Billboard or some such to document claimed chart-topping record sales, or reviews in a paper.Edison 16:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 05:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per abve. WP:NOT an instruction manual/cheat sheet. Grutness...wha? 08:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd suggest speedy delete per db-web, which it fairly obviously qualifies for, but better to leave the door open to db-repost. Danny Lilithborne 09:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The given reason is: It is an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, or similar web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject.
The reason of entry is not apart of any of the entries above. I will say that that the closest to the the entry is a website. however, I said it was hosted on RGuardians.com, and I do include a link to find this game. If you read on it is about the story, hints and tricks, and reviews for the game. I am sure more information about the game will be given.
In addition, if you think RGuardians.com is just Realm of Guardians you are very wrong. RGuardians.com is a website/portal for Realm of Guardians AND Galactic Guardians (another game only mentioned in the history of Realm of Guardians. If you like we will take away the development history. Which we think is what gives it the questionable view.
As for the other points, we are not a blog, webcomic, or podcasts. We have an online forum but again we do not mention it. All the information I felt that was related to the entry that we put in.
~~Kyle~~
I agree with the game creator. I will give my history with the game and then I will tell you what I think as well. First, my account name is Furlings and I have been playing for about 3 years. (Right when they changed domain names.) I have been an off and on player, and I have enjoyed this game along with other text based games. I do not know Brinn (Brinn is Kyle but I have a hard time refering to him as such) in real life. But I do talk to him on AIM quite a bit. I tell you this so you know where I am coming from.
However, I am going to add a few edits in a few moments however, I think as long as this post doesn't start promoting the site it should be kept. I read last night about what Brinn wrote. I know Kyle posted a few of the things he has already posted on his website to fill up content of the site. I am sure it will be changed later.
I believe that this posting will grow. I believe the players of this game will post more than Brinn because he tends to disappear every 2 months only to reappear promoting Realm of Guardians strong. I think he believes that with this the people who use the site will go and learn more about the game, the concepts, how to play, and such. I plan I adding my two sence of how the game was create and my insight.
I am not going to beg you to keep this up. I know Brinn will do that enough for everyone on the site.
~~Eric "Furlings"~~
PS. I am not trying to spam. I just don't think Brinn knew how to do this.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
dicdefs. As for your last ref, did you follow my advice above? `'mikkanarxi 22:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are reputable potential sources for this article besides dictionaries. See this search on Google Books. -- Alan McBeth 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try When We Die: The Science, Culture, and Rituals of Death by Cedric A. Mims and Miracles and Pilgrims: Popular Beliefs in Medieval England by Ronald C Finucane. -- Alan McBeth 23:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad. Yes, now I am stating to remember things. Still, the word feels like a neologism. At these medieval times I don't think the term "phobia" was in use. Anyway, I am withdrawing my nomination. `'mikkanarxi 23:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable. I don't think it needs to be moved, either (although it's probably worth having a redirect at Fear of being buried alive). The part about references in films seems a bit odd to me, though. Maybe it would be better if changed to a general section about references in literature and pop culture? Heimstern Läufer 23:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No independent, reliable evidence of notability. The site is now a Wiki, therefor hurting reliability of the little information it has. I searched through several random pages and via Google, and can find nothing stating that edits have to be under the GFDL or a similar free license, and no images I found had any sort of licensing. Many pages contain copyvio full recreation of song lyrics. Forums have just over 400 users. Alexa rank 997,149. Also delete the template used to link various kids show articles to pages on the site, but don't forget to remove it from all pages it is used on. Drat (Talk) 04:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit I struck out the GFDL bit. They don't take text from Wikipedia, at least that I've noticed, so it isn't relevant.--Drat (Talk) 06:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no content copied from Wikipedia that I know of, it links to Wikipedia does where Wiki has more/better information. The site is not open to public editing, so the reliability is sound. But I accept the notability argument, though I've never known anyone personally that supported the concept of removing entries for notability, fine for paper-based encyclopedias, irrelevent for massive web-based ones like Wikipedia. --Orbling 23:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Alexa rank has been falling heavily since September when the site changed to a wiki as all the pages changed entirely and thus the page rankings went down dramatically, this will pick back up in time. Also, as the site is a MediaWiki it promotes the use of the technology. If the page is to go, I suggest keeping the template as it provides a neat way of doing the external links - there are plenty of other sites with external links with far more dubious content, including videos which that site doesn't do, removing the template will just result in the links being entered manually which is less tidy. Any copyright issues on the site could easily be covered as easily as the show logos are handled on Wikipedia. --Orbling 12:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third party coverage as required by WP:WEB. Sandstein 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom. WMMartin 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tawker 07:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Demiurge. --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus, default to keep. Proto::► 00:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article is completely unreferenced and appears to be composed of original research regarding wrestling fans on the internet. Additionally, the article does not assert the notability of this internet community. —ptk✰fgs 08:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:OR. Wikipedia should not have articles on internet communities over different fields. Michaelas10(Talk) 12:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Smark. The assertion of notability is how it has affected the WWE. Much of the content probably can be cited- a very small portion of it ventures into original research land. --- RockMFR 15:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, fails WP:V. Recury 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a significant term among wrestling fans on the internet that covers a broad base, not just one message board. This article has survived a previous afd. There may be issues regarding OR but those can be rectified with research that verifies most of what is in the article. MrMurph101 21:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC) Also, a google search provides plenty of hits for this term. MrMurph101 00:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without vote (for now). The article does assert notability as it mentions the effects of the community on the sports entertainment industry. On the other hand, without independent sources acknowledging this, either by full name or by IWC (which itself is an acronym for a regional wrestling organization [9] in addition to a boatload of other things), this would fail under WP:V and WP:NOR. Right now I'll abstain in the hopes that someone would find a couple of worthwhile sources.B.Wind 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While some references were added, not one of them was from a reliable source outside of the industry. Reluctant delete. While we're at it, Delete Smark (AfD is here) for the same reasons. B.Wind 02:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete as original research. MrHarman 01:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see four sources in this article so that discredits the "original research" issue. Plus as someone pointed out, a google search provides numerous hits, and also there are much less notable articles that survive here that no one pays attention to or puts some sort of "this article needs fixing" tag on it. It would be better to do that than try to arbitrarily delete it. Arthur Fonzarelli 03:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is total OR, is hard to tell how widespread the term or "community" is, and it is not suitable here. 69.209.113.141 04:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MrMurph101's vote and B.Wind's comments. Jeff Silvers 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their comments were contingent on substantial changes to the article (which is still almost completely unreferenced). Have these changes been implemented? What notability criteria do you believe would be appropriate for this article? —ptk✰fgs 06:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am still relying on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR, actually. The four sources are not independent of the topic of the article; namely, they in fact originate within the very same group of people this article attempts to describe. For it to comply with the first two Wikipedia policies, there needs to be a source from outside the professional wrestling industry and the purported internet wrestling community... say, from a newspaper (site) or national news service. For the lack of such, I remain abstaining for the time being. B.Wind 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term is generic and self-described. The notability would be that pro wrestlers and promoters acknowledge this group even if it's not always direct. The sources in the article are usually responses to wrestlters who are usually criticizing the IWC. It might be good to get the direct source from Matt Hardy or Eric Bischoff when commenting on internet wrestling fans. I noticed there's a couple of merge votes to Smark but that has no sources at all and that apparently is now being afd'd. The term IWC is being used much more than "Smark" now I can tell you that. MrMurph101 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But still no independent sources - that's the problem here. You have basically admitted that it cannot meet WP:V or WP:RS (side question: have you tried seeing if it's been used in mainstream media sites? I know Alex Marvez has been following and writing about it for years for newspapers in Ohio and Florida). As for Smark: it too is up at AfD for essentially the same reason (and that it is a neologism). B.Wind 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the threshold for "reliable sources" for this subject matter? It would be people in the industry at the very least. This group may not get a segment on the BBC or 60 Minutes but it is notable among wrestling fans. To me, verifiability means something that can be confirmed even if it is not presently sourced. Just because some major outlet outside of the industry has not done something on it, I believe, does not in itself mean sources have to be outside the scope of the industry. That would be like saying a scientist(reputable of course) who does research on evolution is not a good enough citation because no outside media reported on it and therefore any article on evolution should be deleted. I'm sure many scientists would dispute that notion.MrMurph101 03:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a weak analogy as scientific research usually - eventually - gets reported to, and by, media beyond the people doing the research. Secondarily, since evolution has still some controversy attached to it, it would be likely to be reported by media on both sides of it.B.Wind 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It probably wasn't worded in the best way. My point was that if something was notable in the scientific community does it need some sort of coverage by the media or referenced by some other group like, say, the freemasons? Or anyone else not related to science for that to be included? Do you see what I'm trying to say? MrMurph101 05:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC) For example, Terraforming of Venus does not cite any references outside the scientific community. Does that mean it should be deleted based on your criteria? MrMurph101 05:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Michaelas10. Blacklist 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrMurph101 vote and Arthur Fonzarelli. Just because a term is not well-known among the mainstream community does not automatically make it unencyclopedic; an encyclopedia is meant to be a place where the uneducated can learn about these things. Just as long as it's not filled with useless trivia, I'll stand by my vote. [[Briguy52748 17:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)]][reply]
Delete. I do not find the external references to be sufficiently well-grounded. It is not enough to cite references outside Wikipedia; it is also necessary that these references would be generally regarded as substantial and targetted at what would count for a broad audience within the general subject area. Thus narrow fan websites don't count, and nor do websites which are run by fans posing as journalists. We need more solid references ( a reputable professionally published wrestling magazine or two would do the trick nicely ). The question I ask myself about articles like this is "could this come up as the answer to a million-dollar quiz-show question?" Clearly something like kayfabe or face or heel could come up, but I can't imagine a fair quiz-show expecting the subject of this article as an answer. So on balance, I think this article should go. It also has the scent of OR, which I don't care for, but that's a separate issue. WMMartin 18:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per the reasons from MrMurph101, Arthur Fonzarelli and Briguy52748. In any way, this article IS informative and does not violate any copyright.LightningStruck 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was that about copyright? We don't keep any old crap just because it doesn't violate copyright, you know. —ptk✰fgs 23:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ("Internet wrestling" #community) into google returns 11,600 results. Okay I see you pointing out there is an Internet wrestling community, but for an encyclopedia this page is terrible. You already have the term "Internet communities". I think that is already covering the basics. Then you are trying to go one step further to define the IWC. Which too me is simple not needed. Govvy 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable cocktail, WP:NOT a recipe book. Prod was removed with the comment "WP:not does not include recipes. recipes are encyclopedic", which is false—recipes are specifically mentioned as an example in WP:NOT. It seems highly unlikely that this article could ever be expanded beyond a recipe. Quale 08:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep - I'm remembering back to my first experiences venturing into bars. It would have been nice to have a resource for learning more about mixed drinks. WP is probably not the best place for it, though. It would be better to find a page to merge just the informative parts and then redirect. --Willscrlt 15:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have just copied the information to List of cocktails#Cocktails with vodka. The Kamikaze (cocktail) is completely unneeded, unless somebody has a lot of information to add (unlikely). I found several articles that are similar while cleaning up just that one section. I plan to go through the rest of the List of cocktails, cleaning it up, and then AfD the ones which are equally pointless after the cleaning. Unless people think that is a bad idea and have a better one. --Willscrlt 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So would there be a redirect if deleted? SliceNYC 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:NOT. Darkspots 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I for one disagree with the conflation of "recipe book" and cocktails. With mixed drinks, ingredients and amounts need to be listed: that's what distinguishes one from another. That being said, the jury's still out on the cocktail's notability/verifiability. SliceNYC 01:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google returns a lot of hits from various searching combinations, though it might be hard to tell because kamikaze has other uses. As I've argued, WP:NOT a recipe book is dubious -- I read that as, "don't say cook at 350 degrees for 30 minutes", not "don't say anything about the food or beverage" -- and not enough reason to delete. SliceNYC 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't get what the problem is -- it's a very popular drink (it's in every recipe book I've ever used), and it's got pretty standardized ratios. A Google search for "Kamikaze drink recipe" returns 118k hits -- seems pretty notable to me. The article just tells you everything you need to know about the drink, as there's seemingly no history behind it. Zorath 18:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem, in a nutshell, is that Wikipedia has a guideline, WP:NOT#IINFO, that this article seems to perfectly exemplify. How do you feel this article does not violate the guideline, which was referenced in the nomination? Darkspots 19:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't intend to speak for Zorath, but like I said above and also here, with cocktails, you can and should list the ingredients. Though you might read into providing the ingreidents as a recipe and contrary to WP:NOT, WP:IAR is a policy too that I feel justifies giving a drink's contents. SliceNYC 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suspect an article could be made on this drink's appearance in and influence on popular culture, with endless citations, but ... this ain't it. Xtifrtälk 19:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coredesat 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this spam! B.Wind 00:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 delete. Punkmorten 11:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographical page created about a Non-Notable person Flakeloaf 10:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no assertion of notability. So tagged. This is the reason why we hace ((db-bio)), please use this template instead of ((prod)) or taking it here. MER-C 10:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Winning national junior titles does not constitute the notability required by WP:BIO. Punkmorten 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 11:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she probably does in fact meet WP:BIOWilyD 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - verifiable by third-person sources and just as notable as the person who finished with a pewter medal, Ashley Wagner. B.Wind 00:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia policy states that any athlete who competes at the national level of their sport is notable. As a medalist in the national juniors competition, she meets the requirements. Consequentially 03:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:BIO says athletes who have competed "at the highest level in mainly amateur sports". In the US, there are many national skating events that are not "at the highest level" (see Figure_skating_competition#Qualifying_competitions_in_the_United_States for an overview). More to the point is that Bulanhagui is a member of the US national team and has represented her country in international competitions sanctioned by the International Skating Union, the IOC-recognized governing body for the sport. Dr.frog 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. See the consensus discussion about notability criteria for figure skaters here. Bulanhagui is not only a US junior medalist, but she has also competed internationally on the ISU Junior Grand Prix this fall and placed high enough to qualify for the series final taking place this coming week (see list of qualifiers here). She therefore has to be considered one of the top international junior competitors in the sport. Dr.frog 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr.frog. I wouldn't know what's notable in this particular sport, but I accept the advice of those who do. Otherwise it's rule by the ignorant. DGG 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr.frog, though I strongly disagree with the idea that I'm simply accepting other people's advice blindly. Rather, I'm assuming good faith in their discussion on this subject, and accordingly accepting their conclusion. If there are clear principles to how Wikipedia works then I should be able to reach the same conclusion on my own. I'm simply taking their word for it because I trust them. WMMartin 18:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr.frog. She competes at the highest level of junior international competition. Kolindigo 02:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a list of weapons from Final Fantasy X: gameguidish information explaining each weapon and how to obtain them. Does not belong on Wikipedia. — Deckiller 11:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge a summary into Final Fantasy weapons. --- RockMFR 14:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That might work, but I'm planning a major overhaul for our, ahem, "coverage" of Final Fantasy gameplay. I'm normally against deletion because it expunges edit histories; in this case, however, I think we need to set an example — especially since the aforementioned overhaul(s) is/are coming within the next 1-2 months. — Deckiller 15:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirected to parent article, so closed. - Mailer Diablo 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THIS is a good example of the kind of Gundam articles that should be deleted, and also the way it should be done (one at a time). No controversy here. Iceberg3k 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely fails NOT (and it's so not notable that even I, who definitely have inclusionist preferences for WP, agree that it falls below any sane notability threshhold), but the capabilities (and incapabilities) listed in the brief writeup are visibly demonstrated in the anime, so it doesn't fail NOR. Iceberg3k 22:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable in any sense. --SunStar Net 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm in with Iceberg3k on this one. This article scores a negative number on WP:FICT. Consequentially 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletedViridaeTalk 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some assertion of notability, nominated for speedy but IMO not quite speedyable, no personal opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - where? I don't see one. An EP in the works (the band's first recording, too) does not constitute an assertion of notability. So tagged. MER-C 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - on second thoughts, I agree with you. Placed here only through caution. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 05:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy and unsourced article on a fictional topic; the Necromongers definitely feature as the principal villains in The Chronicles of Riddick, but the vast amount of detail which constitutes most of this article looks like fanfic, and I cannot find any reliable sources to back any of it up. If verifiable, reliable sources cannot be supplied for this, it should be deleted as per WP:V, or replaced by a stub. -- The Anome 11:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge and delete. Interesting trivia, but it should be in the root article for The Chronicles of Riddick, or even on a Riddick wiki or something. --Dennisthe2 05:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of this information on the "Necromonger Way" was found in the novelization, so it's true. Because it's true and in an official source, it needs to be kept.
Verification is only half of the battle. This article suffers under notability, and if you read WP:FICT it's pretty obvious that it doesn't match up with expectations. The fact that all of the sources come from the novelization only hurt the article so far as the WP:FICTION guidelines are concerned. It's developed entirely from in-universe fantasy, with nothing at all in the world of out-of-universe, real-world citation. Consequentially 22:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, forgive me for not being very educated in AfD votes, but you do make a good point, and if all possible, I'd vote for a (weak?) merge with The Chronicles of Riddick movie page instead of a keep; like I said, the information is true and found in a official source, but, yeah, most of it at this point in time is really unnecessary, though some of it would "flesh out" the story somewhat; either that or someone create a completely different article for The Chronicles of Riddick novelization containing this information. BishopTutu 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though I added most of the stuff in this article, I don't see any particular reason to keep it. It doesn't hold much relevance outside the film and the actual faith itself can be described rather suciciently (I do not know how to spell this word). – Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you mean "succinctly", meaning "tersely" or "concisely". The adverb appears to great effect in the beloved Tom Swiftie "'But I always clean the bowl this way,' said Tom, succinctly." WMMartin 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a vote. Care to provide a reason for your opinion? Consequentially 05:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no references and doesn't meet WP:V. Per each fact I have no clue where it comes from and it is full of assumptions like if ships use a fusion drive. --Quirex 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Carpet-chewingly annoying article. Inadequately referenced, overly verbose, and with a strong scent of OR. Delete. WMMartin 18:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable primary school, no assertion of notability made. Came up in CAT:CSD tagged as ((db-nonsense)) which obviously is not applicable, but given the argument surrounding the deletion of school articles and the potential to be accused of bias if I deleted it as ((db-bio)) I am listing it here. ViridaeTalk 11:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article was edited after te nom and sourced. I now believe it may be notable. No vote either way. ViridaeTalk 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 12:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral. MER-C 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 14:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were plenty of sources if anyone had just bothered to do a one-minute Google search. I've added some info to the article that brings it well into notability. Highfructosecornsyrup 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets content policies, ergo notable. JYolkowski // talk 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about it, IMHO. MrHarman 01:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But barely. It is verifiable per the articles sourced, and noteable, in my opinion, because of the French-language immersion program -- a rarity in American elementary education. I'm removing the bit about the student, however, as its irrelevant to the school. The student is the focus of the article, the school is mentioned by association. Consequentially 03:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to local municipality, delete. Consequentially 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the GFDL is we merge we need to leave a redirect in place. JoshuaZ 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The language-immersion program is offered by many elementary and middle schools in Fairfax County -- 4 kindergartens, 13 elementary schools, and 13 middle schools. The program is notable, but it seems a better idea to have an article about it than to have 30 school articles on the basis of participation in it. Aside from the program, the references show that the school has a business partnership with an organization that helps it purchase supplies and occasionally offers a guest speaker (not unusual), and that the school occasionally brings in guest speakers on occasions such as Read Across America Day (not unusual). Suggest deleting or merging/redirecting the school info to the appropriate locality, and creating an article about the program (which can also list its participant schools). Shimeru 05:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that the program was so common in the area. With that in mind, I'll be changing my vote. Consequentially 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge with Herndon, Virginia. Redirects to place articles are the only effective way of dealing with schoolcruft articles about non-notable elementary schools. DrKiernan 10:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Calling something *cruft isn't a good reason to do one thing or another. To use a ridiculous example, I could call the article on George Washington "Presidentcruft" JoshuaZ 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you're right, that is a ridiculous, absurd example. And it doesn't help to advance your case. When someone calls something schoolcruft it is shorthand for "non-notable school"; it is not merely just about calling something cruft. Nobody would ever use the term presidentcruft, nor try to delete George Washington as non-notable. --Cyde Weys 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The concern to me is that the term *Cruft has been used in AfDs even when something is notable by notability standards. Cruft is a term which can be uncivil and it isn't always clear that people actually mean something is non-notable. In any event, "nn school" is shorter and makes that point clear. JoshuaZ 05:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From an aesthetics standpoint, though, I think people like saying "schoolcruft" more than "nn school". Of course, this is avoiding a larger issue ... that AFD isn't a vote, and if that is all someone is saying, they're not backing up their reasoning at all. --Cyde Weys 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended my original comment to assuage JoshuaZ. I still think it's non-notable even after the edits. If you think it should be deleted, I suggest to you that a merge/redirect is ideal because it will prevent the article from being recreated and an administrator having to delete it again. If you think the information should be kept what harm can it do to have it on Herndon, Virginia instead of a separate page? DrKiernan 15:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect per Shimeru's logic. JoshuaZ 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If teaching French is notable,;)DGG 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Shimeru. -- Kicking222 14:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial edits since this discussion opened show the shcool has a partnership with a US Govt. branch. That's the kind of significant info we should be bringing to our school article reading public. --JJay 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you explain how a minor business connection is notable? JoshuaZ 01:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of nomination the article consisted of one line [10]. It now has five referenced lines on the school and its programs. You are free to characterize the information as "minor", but I think it is exactly the kind of info needed to develop school articles. Wasn't that clear in my original comment? --JJay 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're getting somewhere. I don't care for school articles where there's nothing notable going on, but this looks better. While the French language thing is not that notable, I'm impressed by the business partnership, which looks to me like something worth knowing more about. Let's have a couple of sentences telling us what this is all about. And, amazingly for me, I'm persuaded into a Weak Keep. WMMartin 18:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
speedily deleted by Femto. MER-C 12:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nominee but there is a claim of notability. no personal opinionMatthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 suggested standardizing reference style, see WP:CITE. W.marsh 05:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nominee but some claim of notability; no personal opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm the user who initiated the page. As a novice editor, I'd appreciate your advice in fashioning this article to merit inclusion. As one with an interest in (a) the artist mentioned and (b) contributing further articles, I'd be most grateful.--Hrazer 12:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. Google lists 2,050 returns for this exact phrase search. Several citations are now listed within the text with information acquired from major publications the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. The wikipedia page describing Australian avante-garde composer Ollie Olsen lists Antediluvian Rocking Horse as a collaborator. Connections are established and verified through external links with Damo Suzuki, Snog and Negativland. --Hrazer 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and merciMER-C. I have read these pages and have complied. I appreciate you taking the time. --Hrazer 14:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are some indications of notability including a Melbourne Age [11] and Sydney Morning Herald article. I might see if I can get David Gerard to give his views on it. Capitalistroadster 02:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll investigate a little further - David Gerard 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and verifiability. More citations added. Including: Artist inclusion within intellectual property doctoral thesis The Pirate Bazaar: The Social Life of Copyright Lawref. Artist contribution to biennial Australian copyright symposium. ref.--Hrazer 10:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is my suggestion. I've added some stuff about this artist. I think they qualify as notable: international releases, a fair bit of chatting to mainstream press.--Occasionaluser 00:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, borderline in my opinion, but probably good enough to fall over the line. Article could use some improvement though, there's no discussion of what the group actually produces (music, paintings, writing) until the second half of the article. Lankiveil 10:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for your constructive criticism Lankiveil. I'll add some more explicit information.--Hrazer 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald (one of Australia's leading newspapers) and Mixmag (one of the world's leading electronic music monthlies) suggests notability and availability of reliable sources. --kingboyk 20:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary to have an entire article to make one point, which is already made in other JW pages BenC7 11:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, well that is, unless there's more (sourced!) to say on this subject. I'm contrasting this article, with say Islamic view of Jesus' death which has Qur'an quotes, Muslim scholarship, etc. The JW view seems to rest (from this article, I have no outside knowledge) on the translation of one word, and while I understand that it may have doctrinal implications, its a rather small point. Should be merged into Death of Jesus. Also, all the references are to one article in the Watchtower, which to me isn't really good sourcing. If there's only one article about it in their major publication, it's either a minor issue, or a minority view, don't you think? Dina 13:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I have talked to many JW in my days, and this is a part were they strongly diverge from other Chrsitian views - there is a lot to add by people with knowledge about the subject, we just need to wake up their interest. The point is so diverging that it has even attracted critics of their view (see talk page). proving its notability. Just look at this to understand that there is a lot to add to this article. --Striver 15:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a danger of this becoming a POV fork or a debate page teetering on the edge of original research, but this is a prominent doctrine in that organization. -- Alan McBeth 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This arctle can be expanded from other sections of JW, it is an important issue in this faith and is notable enough for a wikipedia inclusion RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or lets have banter 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I said before, we either delete all religious doctrine or we keep all Alf photoman 13:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is brief, I think it is a correct statement of long held views of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Certainly the view differs from the conventional one, and deserves to appear. However it would be useful if some justification for the conventional Christian view was included, together with any justification for that of the Witnesses. Peterkingiron 23:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will normally support Keep for a religious viewpoint on the basis that who are we to judge, but in this case it is merely one of their many doctrines, and undoubtedly is, or should be, covered in the appropriate articles. Perhaps : J W view of Jesus? DGG 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - unverifiable, no claim of notability, possible hoax. - Mike Rosoft 12:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy candidate but some claim to notability, no personal opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalous hoax, we can see clearly from the 10 ghits that this "holiday" doesn't exist. So tagged. MER-C 12:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete fails WP:V. Per MER-C, no Google hits. JGardner 12:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-encylopaedic. What distinguishes a commercial picnic table from other picnic tables? Emeraude 12:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really even worth keeping as a redirect to picnic table. GeeJo(t)⁄(c) • 17:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A picnic table is a picnic table. This dead-end article is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. B.Wind 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter nonesense that is completely unreferenced... WJBscribe 01:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "commercial" part aside, picnics are what you do on tables. Tables are tables are tables. A dining table can be a coffee table and a coffee table can be a picnic table and a picnic table can be a dining table. In a nutshell: this is conjecture. -WarthogDemon 22:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/withdrawn. W.marsh 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been tagged as unlinked since July 2006 - not even linked to or from Toronto. The content is not as described in the title (something about the centennial celebrations in 1934 might have made an interesting article). This is simply a list of committees and their members, the vast majority of which are red links. The whole appears to be a directory copied from some book or other. Emeraude 12:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is copied from a fairly rare commemorative book, and thus information not generally available to the public. It covers the involvement of a surprising amount of notable Torontonians, at least 30% of which indeed meet WP:BIO's requirements--it was an all-star crew. I've now linked Eric Arthur, Ralph Day, Melvin Ormond Hammond, Arthur Lismer, and Ernest MacMillan to the article, and I'll try to find more. It's not linked from Toronto, because United States Bicentennial and Canadian Centennial aren't linked from their respective articles.
The reason there's no content (yet) of about the celebrations is that no one has had time to go through 365 days x 2 newspapers of microfilm. -- Zanimum 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is a prime example of a time when the original creator of the article should be contacted. --- RockMFR 14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this can and will be expanded, once I have the time, which should be soon. -- Zanimum 15:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on RockMFR's Comment: Maybe, but having been untouched since creation 20 May 2006, it looked abandoned. Anyway, given Zanimum's assurance that it will now be developed, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Suggest getting some links in as well, especially a "See also..." from Toronto. Emeraude 16:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One-man conlang, but that's not a speedy category IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NFT. A non-notable new language used by a single person or a small group of people. Michaelas10(Talk) 12:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. MER-C 12:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] As stated in the notability rules, this is NOT something which was thought up one day in school. Dayle Hill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dale34 (talk • contribs)
It's just as bad. The location is irrelevant, the guideline still applies in spirit. MER-C 13:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and as self-admitted original research. "The reason I created this page... was because I wanted fans of invented languages to be able to see my work." If you wish fans of invented languages to see your work, you may want to consider starting a blog. - Eron 13:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List it on Langmaker.com, the most popular conlanging directory in the web (and now it's a wiki too). --Neigel von Teighen 13:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] With respect, using terms such as 'we don't care' seems an unprofessional opinion given your status, and disrespectful towards someones work, irrespective of how meaningless it is to an individual. I gather Esperanto began at home, probably Elvish too, and yes, while I realise that these are known worldwide, they still share the same humble beginnings as my own. Creating a page on here about a fictional language is not just a schoolboy fad, it can be educational. User: Dale34
I've toned down my comment, but the guideline still applies. You shouldn't have to write about stuff you made up, other people will do it for you when it is sufficiently notable. MER-C 13:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough, point taken. Although I still feel this and other pages like it could have values. Thanks User:Dale34
Dale, as I wrote above, your place is Langmaker or also Conlang Wikia; there you won't have to worry about having your article deleted mainly because it fits perfectly! --Neigel von Teighen 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As many other people have learned, Wikipedia is not the place to try to make your new story/conlang/theory/word/manga popular. Danny Lilithborne 20:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] And what a shame it isnt. It's not offensive, derogatory, misleading. It gives insight, inspiration and education to those who are interested. At least allow me to finish the article before considering a delete?User:Dale34
Strongest possible Delete per WP:COI and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is absolutely not and never, never should be for getting publicity or attention for things. We work very hard to ensure that all articles on Wikipedia are about things that have already received significant independent third-party interest. If it wasn't, we'd be inundated with spam and ads from a million places. Once your conlang has been noticed and talked about by relevant, independent third parties, an article would be appropriate - but not one created by you. --Charlene 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply] Hmmmmm? It seems the gang has me cornered on this one and been slightly rattled! Ok, I accept defeat and bow out! User:Dale34
Another comment: Stop biting a newcommer. The idea is clear and that's it. It's not COI; it's only a mistake. --Neigel von Teighen 19:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its a good job my skin is as thick as a rhino's ass, lol! Dale
I've resolved the issue..the page is gone. It was more than apparent that it was going anyway. User: Dale34
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was a mess. Spare us another trip to deletion review, having separate sections and a combined section creates confusion for admins to whether to delete, keep, etc. Please organise some prior discussion first, and consider nominating the articles separately for deletion instead. It is noted that some articles have been merged, and this might just ressolve the issue. - Mailer Diablo 12:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A blanket deletion nomination for all of the articles in Category:Cosmic Era vehicles (except Missile truck, listed seperately). Please review each article individually and place comments under them. Basic reason for nomination is that the articles are too trivial, more detailed discussion on a similar nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series.
Warships and spacecraft of the Cosmic Era
a list of other wikipedia articles. Keep and rename "List of..." unless it gets emptied by the rest of this AfD. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this anyway; if the other articles are deleted, just remove the links and speculative entries. Ben Standeven 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has had some sort of real-world impact --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vehicles and aircraft of the Cosmic Era
another list. Keep per above. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has had some sort of real-world impact --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aegis class cruiser (Cosmic Era)
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete.
Delete. Per WP:FICTION, articles about fictional topics must include -- no, focus on -- their relevance to the real-world. This makes no argument for its cultural value, even within the Gundam universe.
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arkansas class cruiser
NN as above, Infobox has most fields set to "Unknown". Almost all body text is an OR hypothesis extrapolating from real-world ship naming to explain some continuity hole. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like the above, this article is simple regurgitation of treknobabble about the Gundam universe. No argument for notability or importance outside fictional universe. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Compton class land battleship
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Connected armoured vehicle
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. No real-world analysis or significance. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Des Moines class cruiser (Gundam)
NN, Same mostly empty infobox as Arkansas, same ship naming thing cut and pasted in to fill out the body. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. No real-world analysis or significance. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
F-7D Spearhead
Appears to be a generic figher plane, but it's been flown by a character with lines, Merge and Redirect to his page or a generic "minor craft of Cosmic Era" page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a "minor craft" page, per BCoates, with a focus on its relation to the major character. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FX-550 Skygrasper
Slightly different fighter planes, also flown by characters with lines. Merge and Redirect to his page or a generic "minor craft of Cosmic Era" page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not minor, the Skygrasper carries a significant amount of screen time, is piloted by several main characters, and enough information exists about it to sustain a full article. Keep. Iceberg3k 20:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to accept your argument that it's significant in the series, but if that's the case, the article needs to reflect that. As it stands now, we should delete because it makes no reference to the significance of its pilots. This is a borderline example though, more of a compromise on my part than a belief that this is acceptable under WP:FICTION.
Delete, although it is not minor in the Gundam world, it has had no real-world impact by itself. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a model kit; hence real-world impact. Ben Standeven 19:36, 3 December 2006
(UTC)
Keep. I aggre it is the only Gundamverse fighter to have a real world modle, is a critcal plot device in 2 epsiodes of Gundam Seed, and it is needed to explain some character's motives --WngLdr34 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Infobox full of 'unknown' Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guul
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hannibal-class land battleship
Character with lines sat in one once, but it apparently wasn't important enough to mention on his very long page. Delete.'BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heli (Cosmic Era)
Generic helicopter-thing. Character with travelled in one once, but it apparently wasn't important enough to mention on his page. Delete.'BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kuraokami class cruiser
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lesseps class land battleship
Flagship of a character with lines. Merge and Redirect to his page or a generic "minor craft of Cosmic Era" page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a list of "minor craft" page, redirect. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an available or new list --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linear artillery
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Linear tank
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Petrie class land cruiser
Escort of the Flagship of a character with lines. Merge and Redirect to his page or a generic "minor craft of Cosmic Era" page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a list of "minor craft" page, redirect. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an available or new list --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Takemikazuchi (Gundam)
Flagship of a character who, astoundingly enough, has no wikipedia page. Final resting place of Colonel or possibly Captain Todaka. Talk page helpfully explains the OR method used to make up the vital statistics listed. Merge and Redirect to poor Colonel/Capitan Todaka's undersized page. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a list of "minor craft" page, redirect. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an available or new list --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Character with lines took command of this ship once, but it doesn't rate a mention on his page, possibly due to the official coverup of what is now known as the "Takemikazuchi fiasco". Delete
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
VoLPHAU
No assertion of notability, or even screen-time. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vosgulov class submarine
One was used by a redlinked character. Delete. BCoates 20:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no real-world analysis. Consequentially 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world impact by itself --TheEmulatorGuy 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For discussion of the articles as a whole, talk below here[edit]
Delete/Merge most I'd keep the Skygrasper article since it is one of the featured air/spacecraft in the series and is pilotted by main characters. The problem with Gundam shows is that the weaponry is at least as important as the main characters and should be treated as such. (Actually, a case could be made that the mecha is more notable than the main characters due to liscensing of models and the industry that revolves around them. There are magazines dedicated to these fictional machines. Japan is a very odd place.) I'd say merge a lot of the other articles into the spacecraft and vehicles articles. Remember, we're supposed to delete as a last resort. Expanding and improving is preferred.Strong Keep per below. Kyaa the Catlord 12:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per WP:CE.--Ojaulent 12:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You act as if you're actually citing a guideline.... In any case, it was the keepers that were complaining about how all of the articles were lumped together and now I can't get them to seperate. Did you read all of the nominated articles before voting to keep all? If not, these opinions are invalid.--SeizureDog 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are citing a wikiproject. You are not citing a guideline or policy. That is bad. Did I explain it in simple enough terms this time? That a group of people are interested in filling Wikipedia with articles on Gundam stuff does not mean all Gundam articles are inherently worthy of inclusion. Stop it. Please. Consequentially 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have read all of these articles (and contributed to most of them). Mass deletion of a large chunk of articles is non-kosher, anyway. While the articles have problems, a mass deletion is not a good answer, especially when two of the articles targeted for deletion are articles that many of the above could logically be condensed into. It's my opinion that whenever massive groups of articles are targeted for deletion (several hundred Gundam articles have been nominated in the last 48 hours), it's an indication that somebody who has never bothered to acquaint themselves with the subject of those articles has decided that said articles are unimportant. Iceberg3k 14:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ALL of the information in the above articles is unverifiable (WP:V). ALL of these articles are fancruft. ALL of the above articles are apparent original research. There's nothing wrong with a mass nomination of articles that are essentially of the same subject with the exact same concerns for verifiability and encyclopedic nature. The nominator made it clear that one could vote separately upon each article. I haven't, because I have the same concerns with all of them. You assert that one needs to be acquainted with the cartoon to understand the importance of these articles. In my mind, that's a blatant admission that this is pure fancruft. The articles themselves should illustrate their importance; one should not have to be an indoctrinated fan in order to derive benefit from it. JGardner 18:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRUFT is an essay, NOT POLICY, and not grounds for deletion. Iceberg3k 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be policy (there's no need to scream, by the way), but it's an excellent essay. These articles are about extreme minutiae and there is little claim to be made that they are suitable for an encyclopedia. As you'll note, WP:CRUFT points out that fancruft dumps are rarely suitably referenced and are generally brimming with original research. In the case of the articles under debate today, there is not a single source cited in any article, with the exception of two very dishonestly misrepresented sources (each describes a deity, but the articles cite them for a claim that the fictional vehicles were named for those deities). —ptk✰fgs 18:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you're deliberately twisting my words. It's not necessary to be acquainted with Gundam for the articles to be useful (though it helps, and there are a several articles here that could stand to be merged, as they don't have enough information for a standalone article). However, there are over 100 articles being blanket-nominated for deletion, and many of those do have enough valid information to stand alone as articles in their own right. Iceberg3k 18:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is more validity in WP:CRUFT than there is in WP:CE, but that is neither here nor there. These articles don't meet the criteria set forth by WP:FICTION, as I argued before in the other thread. Prove to me that these articles meet this burden:
"Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger article."
How is a listing of fictional armament, fictional development, and fictional engagements an argument for its impact on the real world? No one has been able to answer me so far. Consequentially 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. - Plau 12:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all None of the articles have sources. Possible WP:OR. All Fail WP:V. In my opinion, fails WP:NOTnot an indiscriminate collection of information. Pure fancruft. JGardner 12:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You ignorance and lack of information does not mean it is fancruft, a citation needed tag is used instead of AfD for possible OR. MythSearchertalk 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, be civil. My 'ignorance', as you put it, has nothing to do with my opinion of these articles. Please be objective: how do schematics, specifications and the etymology of fictional spaceships from a moderately popular cartoon benefit anyone but the most dedicated group of fans? Second, articles based wholly on unverifiable claims is a valid reason for deletion consideration -- probably the most important one. JGardner 17:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I have sited sources in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series page, before I said anything here, and the nominator has list that page as the detailed discussion. The spec are from official data, and thus is not unverifiable. This is why I said this is your ignorance and lack of knowledge. I am being civil enough to tell you what is the problem of you claim here. Articles without sources listed in the page does not provide grounds for deletion, it only provide grounds for adding a tag of references needed or citation needed. Viewing everything you do not know as unverifiable is technically ignorance. Since you have ignored there might be, and have, sources. My English is not that good and cannot think of a better word to use. I am against keeping most of the articles, thus I am not defending them at all, I am just stating your opinion of them being needed to delete just because they have no sources listed does not have enough grounds to back up the argument. On the other hand, WP:IINFO is, to a certain extend, a strong enough argument. Yet nobody can say what is important and what is not, since it is purely POV, and rubbish of one person can be treasured by many. I have no use in knowing how a specific kind of animal living in a remoted area that I will never go is like, but there are people who would be dying to know the info. There are people who need the infomation on what they are, we can find sources for it, and therefore wiki should provide it, as long as it does not violate copyright. The method of providing the information could be discussed and having a page for each and everyone of them may not be the best solution, but it is how it was done and thus a better method should be proposed. MythSearchertalk 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a need for this information, which is a dubious claim at best, does not merit inclusion. Beyond that, the existence of verifiable information is not a de facto indicator of notability. My house has a tax record, a building permit, and an address, and thus is verifiable. We can all agree, though, that my house is not a notable building. I support the compromise of merging the less-important items to a list and purging them of original research or non-encyclopedic content, but this all-or-nothing argument that keeps getting dug up doesn't help a damn thing. As I asked before, please provide us with a list of the articles that you think should remain isolated. We'll work from there. Consequentially 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Unlike the nomination for all the individual weapons, you CANNOT lump all these nominations together. This would delete a significant portion of articles for an entire WikiProject. --- RockMFR 14:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All, reasons as above. Iceberg3k 14:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment - it may be interesting to note that most, if not all, of the images contained in the article are not fair use, and may indeed be full on copyvios. -- wtfunkymonkey 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first 2 and Skygrasper page, Merge all others to a list like the first 2. MythSearchertalk 14:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment There are more primarily useful articles than just those three, for example, Lesseps appears repeatedly, and Takemikazuchi is a major plot element of the second series. Iceberg3k 14:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That an item appears repeatedly in a series of shows is not an indication of notability, or else we could have articles about coffee mugs on the tv series Friends. What's more, these units need to be explained in relation to these plot elements, not as standalone histories. Put the Takemikazuchi in the article on the second series. Consequentially 04:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, this is fancruft taken to a ludicrous extreme. Without any references or assertions of notability of their topics, there is no reason to consider these articles encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and these articles are nothing more than indiscriminate aggregations of fan minutiae. —ptk✰fgs 19:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above if you still think so. What you do not care does not mean it is not important. For sources, I have listed them in the other page. MythSearchertalk 19:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please place the source citations directly into the articles and I will reconsider my statement. Please do not refer to "the other page" without linking directly to it. (what is it, anyway? I can't read your mind.) And what is it up there you want me to read? —ptk✰fgs 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Fancruft isNOT a Wikipedia guideline, nor a reason for deletion! Any "vote" for deletion with nothing but the reasoning "fancruft" is meaningless. — DarkShikaritalk/contribs 19:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you want guidelines? I've listed some already, but okay:
WP:BAIPlease think twice before creating an article about.. Extremely specific details which only a dedicated few care about. Like, say, the size, armament and etymology of numerous fictional spaceships found within a cartoon?
WP:FICTION Calls Major Characters notable and may warrant their own article. Calls Minor Characters notable, but should be merged into a "List of Characters article". Does not provide for the notability of transportation devices found within a work of fiction.
And some policies,
WP:NOTWikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information I don't think it's a stretch to consider "every conceivable facet of a cartoon" indiscriminate.
WP:VThe threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. (my emphasis) JGardner 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have misinterpreted WP:V. An article, as far as I know, cannot be nominated for deletion on the fact that it is unsourced. It can be nominated if it is unverifiable. — DarkShikaritalk/contribs 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all A blanket nom is improper. Danny Lilithborne 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete all with the exception of lists mostly unreferenced fancruft to a level of detail incomparable with notability of subjects. `'mikkanarxi 20:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a better approach than a straight mass deletion; but now that we have categorized deletion I think it would be better to create a Gundam deletion category to hold each individual discussion. Ben Standeven 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stupid Question Can anyone establish the importance of these vehicles outside of Gundam? JChap2007 01:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Oh dear, of course not. If people actually paid attention to policies, the only existing Gundam articles would be lists, main character articles and the Gundam article itself. Of course, we have to compromise and only delete the really bad articles. To answer your question in a kinder manner: No. No one can. They are not important outside of Gundam. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much what I thought. DeleteJChap2007 03:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that people keep misusing WP:NOT#IINFO. From 1~7, only 7 can vaguely be used to say that these articles should not exsist. However, the spec and such are not plot summary, and thus is out of the scope of WP:NOT#IINFO. There are information out there in wiki that is of no use to me, but is useful to a lot of other people, and there must be information that is useful to a lot of fans but not to any others. For example, I do not really need to know the Tasmanian Devil can face tumours that prevent them from eating, but it is just interesting to read different articles to learn new things, fictional or not. Yes, I do not want a page to be just plot summary, but the WP:FICT approved the article Anakin Skywalker, and used it as a reference to a good article on fictional characters. The page contains no information on how the character impacted the real world. The article Horses of Middle-earth is also another good example of what could be included in wiki. They have no impact on the real world, but they are still there used as an example on wiki policy pages. Thus it is concluded that wiki policy(ies) does not state, or encourage the deletion of articles that does not have any impact on the real world. Stop using the argument It does not have an impact on the real world so it must be violating WP:NOT#IINFO and should be deleted. it is proven to be incorrect, by examples listed by wikipedia notability criteria guideline(the WP:FICT). MythSearchertalk 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anakin Skywalker contains information on how the character impacts the real world from top to bottom, which is why WP:FICT points it out as a good article. The second sentence of the article is "In Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith...". The Anakin article is not a biography of a fictional person and the effect he has on a fictional universe, it is a description of a character and the effect he has on a series of movies. This is the difference between an encyclopedia of the real world, with out-of-universe description of real world things (animals, movies, anime) and an encyclopedia of the fictional world, with in-universe descriptions of fictonal things (spaceships, robots, sith lords). These articles only establish notabilty in the fictional universe, and use sources that take an in-universe perspective, and are organized in a way incompatible with ever fixing them. BCoates 08:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From what you pointed out, one can only prove that it is a better written article, not an argument of why any article not written that way should be deleted becuase technically, all articles could be written in that format. Also, do not ignore Horses of Middle-earth as an example. MythSearchertalk 09:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Horses of Middle-earth is only mentioned on policy pages as a good example of accumulating a bunch of entries that don't deserve articles into a single one. The individual horses don't have pages. I'm for keeping and improving the equivalent Warships and spacecraft of the Cosmic Era. It's possible the individual articles could be rewritten in an out-of-universe style and still be non-empty, but there's no evidince of it. If the merged-together article becomes so full of relevant information that individual vehicles need to be split off again, they can be. BCoates 09:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I am aiming for. Merging them. I am just making a point about how people using WP:NOT#IINFO as an argument for deleting articles like these have no bases. MythSearchertalk 10:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also from WP:FICT, Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance... The people saying the ships must have RL impact are relying on this, not on WP:NOT (at least I am). JChap2007 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/ Possible Merge. A lot are useful, and merging may result in "explosion" (especially image) or lengthy articles. Important vehicle should be placed on different page (Such as Skygrasper, Takemikazuchi, etc). Minor vehicle like Guul, is possible to be merged. Draconins 12:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition. I have seen that many only consider TV Series/OVA version as their point of view. Please understand that Gundam SEED (and Destiny) has official novels and mangas, too. Even some details not mentioned in TV series and movies, occurs in novel or manga. I know that some differences do occur, even between the TV series and movies. Some even mentioned that they never got screen time while they are actually do (Such as: Cruisers type vessels (in one with fleet of Takemikazuchi or carrier), Compton class land battleship (operation Angel down) ). Lesseps class land battleship is even important ones in one of Gundam SEED manga! Draconins 12:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Addition(Again). I see MythSearcher had listed good sources, they are japanese though. However, for non-japanese literate , try to see the official site here: [[12]] and[[13]]. Click on the images for more infos. May take time to load. Even Aegis class is put there.... They only list brief pages though. For Destiny, they are still incomplete, for japanese literate, you may need to see official japanese site :[[14]], they separate article per episode group and factions. It may also take time to load. Just remember, the sources I mentioned only talk about the tv series. AFAIK, the only official list I found about other mechas is only in Japanese. Argh... long time I am on wiki-vacation (due overwhelmed works), then I should involved in these crazy debate! Draconins 13:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki: These information may serve a more specific purpose if transferred to a seperate wikicity (in this case, I suggest Gundam Wikia). My rationale is the fact that these articles are relevant to details in Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, but are generally not-so-notable outside that circle. Seen that way, they are much more appropriate to appear in a dedicated site than here. The rest should be merged into a list IMO. --Blackhawk charlie2003 15:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primary source official guide book. Which is a inclusion of data file and mechanical files, I have mentioned as a source above, into one book. (I give no credits for the title of it since I am not a fan of Cosmic Era and hated it to be even called Gundam)
Hobby JAPAN (ホビージャパン) and 電撃 HOBBY MAGAZINE (ホビーマガジン) model based magazines, not gundam specific but with a lot of information about what are the models used for in the plot. If you want to ask me for the issue date and number, I will tell you every single issue contains Gundam Models, I do not have time to go through each one to modify the articles about which issue they are from.
Newtype Magazine with more detailed articles about mechanical and character data that are not just plot summary.
I am only listing these to support the exsistence of some articles, not all of them. MythSearchertalk 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The sources need to have stronger focus. From what it looks like, each source has a page (or two) for each article (with a bit of background and facts) and nothing more. That does not warrant the existence of a separate article for each one. The so-called "real world impact" is for the articles as a whole, not each article. This is why a list would be acceptable. To think the FX-550 Skygrasper itself had real-world impact is ridiculous. Please do not vote "keep" in reference to these sources, although "merge" is acceptable. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I voted that to be keep is because of these 12 model kits. All the other articles do not have their own model kits, having it own models kits shows elevated level of importantness, not to mention having 2 or more. The article could be improve to state that the said vehicle has impacted and company to produce and design 2 model kits featuring it. MythSearchertalk 05:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe those model kits were part of a series of Gundam and mecha-related model kits. Once again, this shows that they have elevated importance in Gundam, but because they are part of a series of Gundam-related kits, they have no individual importance. Of course, they could be very high selling (or other things like that) but there's no evidence of this. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but they are not. For the same series of model kits, the first one contains only Strike Gundam and Strike Rouge (as a different colouring) as anything related to Skygrasper and is a separted model. The second series contains Ace Combat, Yukikaze both are not Gundam or even produced by companies related to Gundam. MythSearchertalk 06:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't seem to have much on the other page, but this one seems to be a lot easier. Other than Skygrasper, all the others are pretty much keep the first 2 and merge(or delete) the others. Can anyone confirm the situation just so that we can move on to actually merging them? I will go and change the Skygrasper page now to modify it I have modified the Skygrasper page to show more real world impact and hope that by tomorrow we can get rid of most of the other pages. MythSearchertalk 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say go ahead. Some people voted for a straight keep all, but they don't seem to be citing any relivant guidelines. Most are agreeing that a merge is in order.--SeizureDog 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decide to start merging some vessels because, no major changes happened before and since I edited some vessels of cosmic era. See Minor Warships and Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam). Though, I am against merging Takemikazuchi and Tarawa into them since IMHO, it is important enough. For others, just wait... I got my hand full... currently. For all keepers, please pray that my boss does not scold me for this... (just joking... -_- ). Any suggestions are welcome. I really need your comment on Takemikazuchi and Tarawa matter. Draconins 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Added)oops, I also forgot I also against merging Vosgulov and Lesseps. Those need your comment also... Draconins 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am kinda against those 2 have separate pages, yet. Even Captain Todaka's page is being evaluated to be deleted(and I am going to support that). Takemikazuchi appeared in, like, 3 episodes? Destiny units are still too new to have any impact on anything, and really, I think I am pretty knowledgeable on the sources, and I cannot find anything about them that is really notable, not even in the series itself. (not even the mechanical files give more than half page worth of them.) MythSearchertalk 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Same argument. Lesseps, maybe arguable. They appeared in GSA series, too, thus can have maybe an extra line saying the design inspirated the author of GSA. However, I still don't think it is important enough, just yet. Also, most of the plot summary actually should go and will make the whole article shorter, and thus even less desire on keeping it as a separated article. Not going to hurt if it is merged for now, if any more sources pop up to support the Lessep, like having a model kit or appearing in Super Robot Wars or anything like that, I will say split it back out. All the sources now are still too oriented towards Gundam Seed series and there really are not much to tell for now. MythSearchertalk 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This discussion marks an important advance in the repeated discussions of such objects--put them in groups: not a particular type of warship, but warships. Perhaps such a practice will make obsolete this sort of discussion.DGG 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update due to the discussion being inactive for more than 24 hours after my suggestion, I am going to merge the ones that no one is fighting for a keep. I am going to leave Takemikazuchi, Tarawa, Vosgulov and Lesseps alone for maybe 2 more days and see if anyone coming up showing their importance countering my argument above. MythSearchertalk 08:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update, complete merging all vessel AfD-ed above, except Takemikazuchi, Tarawa, Vosgulov and Lesseps (I will decide in 2 days, will be merged if nobody except me against the merging). Only vessel type though. I plan to add other minor vessel not AfD-ed in the page. See Minor Warships and Spacecrafts of Cosmic Era (Gundam), and give your comment/suggestion. Draconins 11:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy nominee but imo not speedyable - no opinion. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of meeting WP:SOFTWARE. MER-C 12:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick google shows plenty of hits. Added CNN review and InsideMacGames review to the article. Subject satisfies WP:SOFTWARE criterion "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself"JGardner 12:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Keep. MER-C 13:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Needs improvement, but that's a seperate issue. Wavy G 20:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. Played by may people. Many google hits. Needs cleanup.--Natl1 02:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or even better merge into the Diner Dash article, the original Diner Dash has been a smash hit and been ported to handheld. This is a cut-and-paste sequal by the looks of it, but I don't believe this title could be considered NN or unverifiable. QuagmireDog 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletedViridaeTalk 06:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This village football team from the Republic of Ireland seems non-notable. No hard and fast rules exist for notability of clubs in Ireland by the level they play at but this club doesn't seem equivalent to a "levels 1-10 in England" club
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. ChrisTheDude 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator ChrisTheDude 12:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. --Dennisthe2 05:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
speedily deleted by Gurch. MER-C 03:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Filipino actor, was speedy candidate, no personal opinion Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 12:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - hoax article. This "artist" does not even appear on ASAP Mania as the author claims. Also observe the username of the creator of this article: user:Nino lorenz08. - Danngarcia 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Author blanked the page exc for the name, so I took the liberty of tagging as Speedy delete G7. Tubezone 18:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Agent 86 00:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the numerous assertions of notability. Sources need to be found- that's what ((unreferenced)) is for. --- RockMFR 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also find it very troubling that this article was tagged with ((db-nonsense))... --- RockMFR 14:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - notable per WP:MUSIC. I'm finding lots of external press coverage on him (criterion 1); apparently he's gotten gold albums in South Africa (criterion 3), and has appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show multiple times (criterion 12, if it was long enough). Granted, the title is wrong (his name is Watkins) and it needs sources, but I'll have no problem finding and adding them. Crystallina 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - notability is verifiable, meets WP:MUSIC. A discography section would just about clinch it. B.Wind 00:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. A Google News Archive search gives 91 hits [16]
He has been a fixture on the licensed clubs circuit in Australia for decades and apparently in other countries judging from the articles in Google News Archive. Capitalistroadster 02:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this be a speedy candidate at all?? --Dmz5 07:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable term on numerous websites, merging to one article (Slashdot) would be stupid. --- RockMFR 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remember the term clear back from my pre-Internet BBS days in the late 1980s. The fact it is still in use is pretty notable itself. :-) --Willscrlt 15:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why merge with Slashdot? A simple Google search of "Anonymous Coward" -slashdot returns about 984,000 hits. This is a term deeply rooted in Internet history, and is certainly not exclusive to Slashdot. If the article were less developed, perhaps it would be better in Wiktionary, but as-is, it seems to stand on its own. For what it's worth, you're right. I couldn't find any hits that appeared to be pre-Slashdot to verify my memories, though I still have the old BBS messages archived on 5.25" floppies somewhere. Now if only I still had a 5.25" drive! :-D --Willscrlt 16:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the verifiability policy. The significance of the term "Anonymous Coward" outside the context of Slashdot cannot be verified by the standards of that policy. Other sites use the term, but in apparent reference to Slashdot. This article does not stand on its own. It is a jumble of three subjects: anonymous posts on Slashdot, a list of sites that have borrowed the term from Slashdot, and anonymous posts in general. The first two belong on Slashdot, if anywhere, the last on Anonymous post. -- Alan McBeth 18:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge the verifiable content (basing onWP:RS) into "Anonymous post". Google hits are not valid argument here. You can get zillions of hits for various common phrases big bucks, clueless moron, I want to get laid... `'mikkanarxi 20:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem here is that Anonymous post also has no sourcing, either, so neither article can stand alone or in tandem with each other. They're both terminology used in Internet bulletin boards and chat rooms. Do we have something that is a bit broader than Slashdot for this? Merge this and anonymous post with the appropriate article, whatever that might be. B.Wind 00:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that I am finding while researching this, is that most of the Internet sources refer back to either the Anonymous Coward or the Anonymity article as their defacto explanation of the term. It seems that many people consider the articles to be excellent references on their own. I realize that contradicts the goals of Wikipedia to only provide citable articles, but what happens when Wikipedia is the primary citation for an Internet term like this? I realize it is not a good reason alone to keep the article, but there will be many broken or potentially confusing inbound links to Wikipedia if either article is deleted, redirected, and/or merged. If merged, the redirect should point as closely as possible to the comparable part of the larger article. Many disussion board software appear to use the "Anonymous Coward" term, so it is definitely not unique to Slashdot. --Willscrlt 01:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While "anonymous post" is indeed unreferenced, it is a *technical term* (unlike "A.Coward") and chances are good IMO that it may be sourced, at the very least in those BB regulations which expressly ban these. `'mikkanarxi 01:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another possible target for both is Screen name (computing) (although I've just tagged it as unref'd as well). It looks like we have quite a black hole here :-) `'mikkanarxi 01:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, highly notable with its own reuptation. --Dennisthe2 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable, and stand on it own, as made in points above --Pichu0102 21:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable term. If Wikipedia wants to be a reference, it has to accept that, due to its ability to change rapidly, there are some phenomena that it will be the primary reference for. It is not credible that external references will exist for any and every item of note which crops up, particularly on the internet. -- eyrieowl December 3, 2006
Keep Quite notable on many sites. MrMacMan 07:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of interesting but lack of notability; no sources to indicate such. CAFFO is very new so maybe in time it will be an interesting article to recreate? Marcus22 13:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to allow this article to continue exist, under perhaps stub labeling?Wavecal22 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wavecal22, 'fraid Wiki don't work like that. If the subject of the article is considered insufficiently unencyclopedic - albeit at this point in time - then it will be deleted. If and when CAFFO becomes notable, as proven by independent and reliable sources, then someone can recreate the article. Marcus22 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability. "New" generally means "not notable", in rare cases "not notable yet". We don't create placeholder articles. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we do create stubs. Should this be a stub? I don't like stubs in this namespace, but if others think it belongs… Will (Talk - contribs) 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even a stub has to refer to a sufficiently notable subject. A stub referring to an insufficiently notable subject would also be AfD'd. And then probably deleted. Marcus22 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I've seen countless articles, both stubs and full articles which establish no notability. yet i think they should still exist. We are creating an encyclopedia, which "is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge" Caffo is a branch of knowledge. just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean no one else has. It is still something in the world that there is knowledge of, so why not include it? I really see no reason to delete this article, other than to save server space, but the amount of space that one small article takes up is insignificant.Wavecal22 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about server space, its human confusion The problem for any broad scope web project is keeping the level of noise down so the information is visible. DGG 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was tagged for speedy deletion, but tag was removed, so relisting for AFD. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no assertion or evidence of notability, apparent WP:COI violation, since article was created by User:Mramaiya. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - "but tag was removed" by the author. He's not allowed to do that. Still no assertion of notability. Retagged. MER-C 13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
Redirected by Whpq. Eluchil404 09:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Report has been included in with results on 2001 PDC World Darts Championship rendering this page as a duplicated page. There are already pages listed as 1994 PDC World Darts Championship right through to 2007 PDC World Darts Championship, therefore its this article which needs deleting Seedybob2 10:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. --- RockMFR 14:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I don't see why this is at AFD even. It's a clear case of a duplicate article. -- Whpq 16:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq - it was done because 1) its the 1st time I've ever nominated an AFD 2) didn't know you could re-direct a page to another that already existed - thought you had to delete one. Sorry to have wasted anyone's time. Seedybob2 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No probs. I have boldly redirected the article. -- Whpq 00:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 meeting WP:WEB was not really demonstrated, and is certainly not asserted in the current article. W.marsh 15:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:RS has no sources beyond primary source. Quirex 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources. Possible spam. "Hundreds" are playing "worldwide" and "It's in its 12th season" (when the article stated a June 2005 release) indicate very limited notability at best, most likely failing WP:SOFTWARE.B.Wind 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has now been revised, article IS NOT spam, site IS NOT failing, high season number is only due to the seasons passing once every 40 days, please re-read and make new assesment Markb75 17:46, 3 December 2006 (GMT)
I reread it and it still fails WP:V and WP:RS. It has no sources and thus fails WP:WEB. Please go review the requirements in WP:WEB and see that no one has covered this website, it hasn't been awarded anything significant and no one has based their work on this work. --Quirex 19:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also reread it, and none of the changes address my objections. If there are sources independent of the website, they must be placed in the article itself. Also I didn't say that the website itself "is failing", but that it is failing a notability guideline of Wikipedia (WP:SOFTWARE), but articles for websites involving thousands of participants have not survived AfD; so one that mentions "hundreds" is on unsure footing as it is... and, as Quirex pointed out below, it has a serious problem with WP:WEB. Wikipedia cannot be used to promote something; it can be used only to reflect the notability that is already there.B.Wind 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not assert notability in any way. Fails WP:WEB. Over 300 registered users? That's hardly a lot. --Lijnema 18:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
just a quick search on the net revealed a published article on www.pc.gamezone.com and also the site is covered in wikihow! Independant sources as requested, can you please restore my revisions now.
Thank you for the sarcastic comment about the number of players, not exactly constructive, sites have to start somewhere and what about your own guidelines here? something about not biting the newcomers?, Markb75 20:20 3 December 2006 (GMT)
Not sure why you would feel bitten by the fact that I state that 300 registered users for a game isn't a lot. Unless you're one of the creators/owners of the game, in which case you should actually stay away from editing the article, since that would be a clear conflict of interests. --Lijnema 20:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Maybe
We don't have multiple non-trivial references. The 2nd reference is trivial. The first one belongs to soccer gaming which lacks a wikipedia page, and has an alexa ranking of 44,904. Is this a news site, a review site or a blog. I'm really not sure. Is the reviewing site notable? I don't know.
2. The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation. No
3. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. No
I'm not suggesting that these links are the extent of the coverage, just two that I found. I would however suggest reading the 2nd one, as it is probably less trivial than the first including a link to an interview with a developer of the game.
Also I think it worth mentioning that "Web-specific content is notable if it meets any one of the criteria" and not necessarily all 3. Slipperking 11:35 4 December 2006 (GMT)
Keep because doubtful.DGG 01:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lack of reliable sources. W.marsh 02:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V and WP:RS has no sources beyond primary source. The page is self sourced and has no reliable sources, no secondary sources and has had a warning regarding source on it for 4 months, has recieved heavy editting yet no sources. Quirex 19:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there were plenty of sources before, but someone removed them and no one noticed. I have added them back. --Liface 21:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is GBStv (primary source), the second is GBStv, the third is a broken link, the forth (Kevin's blog) is a blog, the fifth is a user edittable blog that anyone can post on, the sixth, brick films wiki, is a wiki and is user edittable, has only one edit, the seventh link is a blog. None of these are reliable or verifiable according to WP:V. --Quirex 21:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As per Quirex above, and because this appears to be of interest to a limited community (Something Awful). ContivityGoddess 00:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & ContivityGoddess --AbsolutDan(talk) 01:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability. Being mentioned on Attack of the Show (no indication of how substantial this mention was) does not establish widespread notability. The one and only independent reliable source seems to be a TV presenter wearing a t-shirt with the site's logo on G4 (TV channel), and we can't really build an encyclopaedia article out of that. Demiurge 14:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment under WP:RS, the GBStv website counts as a reliable source on the subject of GBStv only, so the article passes the verifiability test. However, it still fails WP:WEB due to the lack of non-trivial external references. Demiurge 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-existence of reliable sources is currently a criterion for deletion. Failure to cite existing sources is not. dryguy 16:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't see them and no one has added them for the 4 months. That said this article fails WP:WEB: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. No, all published sources so far have been trivial. The website or content has won a notable independent award from either a publication or organisation. No GBStv has not won any such award. The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. No one is redistributing GBStv branded content (that I know of). This is compounded with everything except the self-link failing WP:V. --Quirex 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge with Something awful - fails WP:WEB, unsourced assertion of pioneering notwithstanding. Only one actual article points to it, and the link there looks almost gratuitous. Time to return it to its parent until the sources arrive that can establish WP:WEB. B.Wind 01:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GBStv is independant of Something Awful and merging these two seperate entities would not make sense. --ZsinjTalk 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability (especially under WP:WEB) and verifiability in reliable media. --Jacj 22:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep It isnt much, but its enough. we perhaps need specific guidelines for this, because there will be more.DGG 01:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GBStv has been under some major hatred for some asinine reason involving its creator. The only people even putting these notices on the page are people expressing such hatred. CurtDogg
Comment: or, perhaps, it doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion? --AbsolutDan(talk) 03:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While GBStv was created by a forum member of Something Awful and does carry some of its themes, GBStv is not an official part of Something Awful. Therefore, merging it with Something Awful would be inaccurate.--Sswanso(talk) 12:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hey, this is Chris Putnam, the creator of GBStv, and I just want to say I don't really mind if the article is deleted from Wikipedia although we have a decent number of active users and I do feel it's somewhat "notable" for that reason. It is true that there are no real reliable sources and, as such, I am okay with it being deleted. However, I'd really like to know where another useful encylopedia resource is online so people can learn about GBStv's history independent of its own web site. I fail to understand exactly why Wikipedia cannot afford to have more legitimate information archived on its site, especially relating to demonstrably large internet communities. As a side note it doesn't surprise me that the people pushing for this are possibly on the offensive for some drama reason that I have no grasp or part of (the user who is arguing for this the most, Quirex, is not surprisingly a proud SA goon). In fact I have been very busy with other projects for quite some time and have relied on our excellent community to run the site on their own. GBStv was never related to the Something Awful forums, it just required SA membership for the first 5 months of operation. I built it to provide a place for a community of friends to hang out and watch TV (and to showcase their content to one another), and it's still doing that over a year later with nearly 10,000 users. But alas, we have no legitimate notability according to the rules of Wikipedia, so again let me repeat I don't mind us going the way of the axe. I'm just a bit upset at what Wikipedia considers "notable" and "unnotable", and for a significant community like this to be lumped in with vanity articles for 12-year-olds is not just offensive, but it's unfair.
Comment Wikipedia has these things called policies which are the rules of Wikipedia. These rules include expected behaviour of users and necessary requirements for article inclusion. If you read WP:WEB and WP:RS you'll see this AFD is solely based on policy. There is no drama here, it is the enforcement of wikipedia's own inclusion policies. --Quirex 16:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia has these things called policies which are the rules of Wikipedia." Putnam is not dumb and he is simply stating that the notability guidelines could do with some tweaking. ZsinjTalk 21:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply specifying why I disagree with his remark about drama since I felt he was accusing me of nominating this in bad faith. I did not call him dumb, I think you misinterpretted my tone. --Quirex 23:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clearly bad faith nomination. `'mikkanarxi 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, the nominator has added his reason. Notability for an artist with 12 albums is definately not an issue. KeepMallanox 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Commment'. Yes, I have. Recording an album or twelve, does not make one notable. Being a musician does not justify a chaos magic category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs)
Delete Notability is not subjective— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs) - second vote by nominator
Comment - Notability criteria do not equate to "I have heard of it"/"I have never heard of it" or "I think this topic deserves attention"/"I do not think this topic is worthy of attention". These subjective evaluations are irrelevant to the notability of a topic regarding its inclusion in the encyclopedia.
Notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. With respect to notability, the inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, and journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. As such, the primary notability criterion does allow Wikipedia editors to determine whether "the world" has judged a subject to be notable, but this is not a consideration of whether a Wikipedian personally thinks a subject is or is not notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs)
Ok, the debate will continue here about notability though the category an article is in isn't really for discussion here. Perhaps you could start a debate on Talk:Ian Read (musician). Please add ~~~~ to the end of your posts on talk pages as it makes it clearer who said what. Mallanox 22:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Bad faith nom. Nobody cares about chaos magic. If you're notable for anything, you're notable. --Tsuzuki26 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tsuzuki seems to think notability guidelines are unimportant. I disagree. Because anyone can claim "occult" significance, I believe some discretion is needed. And what is "no-one cares about" doing in a notability discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs) - third vote by nom
Comment - This is not "Occultopedia". If you are notable for anything at all, you are notable period. Scooby-Doo has absolutely nothing to do with chaos magic or the occult, yet it is still here on Wikipedia. I wonder why that is. --Tsuzuki26 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sarcasm does not help your argument. To compare the cartoon giant Scooby with this marginal musician is not constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.142.172 (talk • contribs) - fourth vote by nom
Comment Please state your preference to keep of delete only once. Please both of you assume good faith and try to keep the discussion on this page on topic. Mallanox 23:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable. Suggest this AfD be semi-protected so that only established editor can vote. —Hanuman Das 01:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pertinent question here is "does Ian Read meet the WP:MUSIC guidelines?" It appears he does indeed as a member of Soul Invictus and Fire + Ice. Both bands are apparently fairly important and influential Neo-Folk bands. His occult significance isn't really relevent because he's notable as a musician according to Wikipedia guidelines (and I imagine he meets other WP:MUSIC criteria as well if anyone wants to look into it further.--Isotope23 01:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This was nominated by 71.219.142.172 who obviously has a problem with Chaos magicians as he has nominated Jan Fries, Ian Read (musician), Phil Hine, etc. WITHOUT EVEN REGISTERING! FK0071a 16:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable, NPOV, non-OR article. There goes the three key policies. "Notability" is clearly established, despite this anonymous IP's huge definition of notability. Here on Wikipedia, we believe that Kiki is not paper, and thus include less important things than other encyclopedias. -- Chrisisme 14:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a bad faith nom to me. Regardless, article meets any and all criteria. --- RockMFR 14:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a hoax. Mindmatrix 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Person does not exist. Keitij 20:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The Toronto Raptors didn't start play until 1995, so the article is either a hoax or woefully inaccurate. Scoring 80 points in an NBA game would be legendary, Wilt Chamberlain-esque, and would result in at least one valid google hit...it doesn't. No listing on BasketballReference.com. Smells like a hoax. -- Scientizzle 21:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Scientizzle. If if he played one NBA game, there would be at least a historic team roster on the web. --Oakshade 02:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sppedy Delete. Nonsense. So tagged. -- Chrisisme 18:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unencyclopediac, non-notable subject, and to a lesser extent, a POV fork. THe page's topical is basically "Things that Catholic Church Leaders have said about Opus Dei"-- the page consists mostly of extended quotations which are mirrored at Wikiquote. I think the other 20-some Opus Dei subarticles probably are sufficient to cover the relationships between Opus Dei and the Catholic Church. Alecmconroy 09:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out we didn't want to AFD, we just wanted to redirect. Nomination withdrawn, education obtained. --Alecmconroy 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to a valid target. I don't agree with the nom at all - the subject is not only encyclopedic but highly notable, and I'm not convinced the subject itself is a POV fork, either. Regardless of your feelings, this is not a matter for deletion - we should either merge the information into the proper Opus Dei article/sub-article or keep this one as a valid sub-article and clean it up. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. My position on this article, thought, comes from one area: should we have an article on it. If the information is logically worth spreading amongst other articles - or is already in other articles - then we don't lose anything by merging/redirecting. If the information that can exist doesn't really fit anywhere else, we should have this article. I don't know if I'm in a position to make that statement myself, but I don't believe that deletion is the option here, but rather discussion amongst other editors about how to handle the subject. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
K. You were right. I asked on IRC and was told that AFD is just we want to completely kill the page all together. Having merged stuff into other articles and wikiquote, no AFD is needed, you just make the redirect. --Alecmconroy 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was
Redirected no need to AfD duplicate articles. Eluchil404 09:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: page has been merged into another, and is now no longer needed. perfectblue 13:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 14:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of W.I.T.C.H. Characters (TV Show) to preserve edit history. Actually, I'll go ahead and do that now since that should have been done in the first place. --- RockMFR 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's clear nobody wants this kept as it is; it's either 'get rid of it altogether', or 'merge it into Emily Dickinson. There's not section on this topic in the main article, so it's a valid merge candidate. I'll close this as a merge, and let the Dickinson experts decide how much or how little of this article they wish to retain. Proto::► 10:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV essay. Original text contained great claims of or, such as in this line:
'The last editor of this article who wrote much of this and who was quoted as saying evidence of Emily's possible romantic involvement with women is "scant and highly ambiguous" also included this note: "However, even radical literary critics such as Camille Paglia, who wrote extensively about masochism and violence in Dickinson's poetry, emphatically deny that Dickinson's relationship with Susan was physical."'.
It's clear that this article shouldn't exist, or at least be rewritten without POV or OR. Also, sourceless. -- Chrisisme 14:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's clear that this article shouldn't exist. --- RockMFR 14:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced and unsourceable. She was such a recluse that, lacking any actual evidence, any opinion on her sexuality is speculative. Fan-1967 14:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's not an attack, even on the people who speculate. -- Chrisisme 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite or Delete The article as it currently exists at least refers to Dickinson biographers who have brought up the issue, which would place this article under the general guidelines of a tertiary guide to an existing scholarly debate. The problem of course is the lack of verifiable footnoting and references beyond the comment that two scholars have discussed this. If this article could be cleaned up and cited appropriately, I can't see any reason it couldn't be kept (or at least merged back into the main Emily Dickinson article). However, lacking that citation this article has to be considered original research per nom. -Markeer 15:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not nearly as bad as I thought it would be. The references are mentioned in the article's text; if we just contact the author and get him to use Wikipedia style to reference them then I think a shortened version of this would make a good addition to the Emily Dickinson article. Recury 16:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Emily Dickinson. The main article is not too long, and doesn't require sub-pages. The editors of the main page can then decide how to handle the merged material. DrKiernan 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. The article, or at least the version I read, does in fact cite sources in-text; the format of those citations is an editing rather than a deleting matter. The truth of these speculations is beyond our jurisdiction. But with some editing, this probably could fit in the article without giving undue weight to them. - Smerdis of Tlön 20:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV fork. Delete. B.Wind 01:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. meshach 01:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious POV fork because it is obvious that the content would not be able to stay in the main article without someone raising an issue with it. The content here should be on the main Emily Dickinson page or off of wikipedia. Delete (if the content is merged then someone should be sure to source the claims made because of the difficulty of distinguishing gossip from fact in the area of sex lives of famous people). Allon Fambrizzi 06:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Delete Even though I am the user who published this article I only moved it here to a separate article because the entire main article was almost entirely only about Emily Dickinson's sexuality in spite of its complete lack of credible sources. What I did was to simply cut and paste all that material that can be seen on the original publishing of this article to here, and link this article to the main page. I did this so the main Emily Dickinson article would not be filled with the POV content you see here (Which no one would allow me to delete.) In retrospect this may have been a poor decision for which I apologize. I agree that if the content is merged then someone should source the claims to credible sources. Cyberrex7891 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and merge There are oodles of academic sources--every biography or printed encyc. talks about it. It is mainly speculation, but thee are texts to base it on, and its speculation about an imortant aspect of the life of an extremely important author--and is relevant to her work.DGG 01:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and merge— goetheanॐ 23:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed by anon. Unable to even verify this band's existence. Clearly if, in fact, the band had had a double-platinum hit that was #1 on the Australian charts for weeks, and multiple ARIA awards, it would show up in a search. If the band even exists, it's eminently not Notable, but much of the material is an obvious hoax. A related hoax article on Misha's brother Saul (answers.com mirror here) was previously speedied. -- Fan-1967 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable hoax as nom. It's highly unlikely that a band could have a #1 chart hit, win awards, play major festivals etc. without leaving any trace in secondary sources. Demiurge 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since all the ARIA awards are available online, as well as many being listed here, it's not just unlikely. It's impossible. Fan-1967 15:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 please cite some of these sources in the actual article. W.marsh 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep possible merge as CB; appears to be notable but only in the context of the quartet. Demiurge 00:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew York is important outside of the "Los Angeles Guitar Quartet", which he left in 2006! His compositions for guitar are performed by guitarists all around the world, even by John Williams (guitarist) (ref. [18]) (Put another way: If Andrew York is deleted, all articles in [19] need to be deleted.)
Weak Delete This article has some serious POV issues, and probably should be merged into "Los Angeles Guitar Quartet." However, I really don't see a consensus forming here, so this may have to be relisted. Diez2 21:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen(talk) 14:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Andrew York has been "featured on the magazine covers of Gendai Guitar in Japan and Classical Guitar in England December 1993: Volume 12, Number 4, and interviews have also appeared in Acoustic Guitar and Guitar Player in the U. S. A." (ref. [20], [21]). His solo CD "Denouement" was voted "”Best Classical Album”" of 1994 by Guitar Player Magazine readers’ poll [22]. (Andrew York cannot be merged with LAGQ, because he left them around Sep. 2006![23]) Andrew York is (in my humble opinion) a sensitive guitarist and lyrical composer. -> There is a radio interview [24], where Andrew York plays one of his own compositions "Letting go" - live (no sound-studio touch-ups) AlonsoAlfons 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His CDs are available on amazon, and he is the subject of press coverage. DrKiernan 11:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not asserted for this brand-new bank - too new to have done anything notable yet, in fact. Only 52 unique G-hits. wikipediatrix 17:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. (I think it just barely asserts notability by describing itself as "major".) Demiurge 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even its openning had some press because of it's part of a growing trend of Islamic banking in south Asia and elsewhere. --Oakshade 04:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mackensen(talk) 15:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment two newspaper stories have been added since I voted above, but they appear to be just repackaged press releases, specifically disallowed by WP:CORP. Demiurge 15:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete — I've read through all of the Google links. This bank is so new it's only notability (at least on the Internet) relates to the islamic banking trend (see Oakshade's entry above). So, it's possible and reasonably likely that this bank could become notable in the near future. However, since wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this article should probably disappear until more notable references appear. I nominate a "weak delete" because it seems likely to me that in a year (if the bank indeed expands as it hopes to) this article may be a relevant addition. So, letting it simmer for a while is just possibly a reasonable alternative to deletion. Right now, however, it's pretty clear that it doesn't come close to WP:CORP. Dallben 18:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No information entered, grammatically incorrect page name (last name uncapitalized) Sdws17 15:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No AFD needed. I have redirected to the properly capitalized title. Fan-1967 15:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A radio presenter whose sole claim to fame is a three hour timeslot broadcast only in Queensland is definitely not notable. If this woman deserves an article on Wikipedia, then I deserve an article as well. rob.mck. 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She is in no way notable. Even the external link just goes to Hot FM's website, not a profile or anything of her. - KingIvan 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Morning DJ on Queensland regional radio station. Nothing on Google News while Google News Archive and EBBSCO's Australia and New Zealand archive throws up a couple of listings in the Afterdark section of the Townsville Bulletin. Capitalistroadster 02:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even broadcast throughout the whole state. Sorry, but she's not notable enough. Lankiveil 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed a week ago with promise to supply notability, but none has ever appeared. Looks like attempt to memorialize retired military officer who died 19 November. Based on career highlights and promotion history, apparently a junior officer in WW2 and reservist after. Author of a self-published book that he sold by mail out of his apartment [25]. Fails WP:BIO, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. Fan-1967 15:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unencyclopedic, including an editor's notes to himself/herself. B.Wind 01:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very clearly a memorial written by an editor contributing a single page. DrKiernan 15:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
}
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged and re-tagged as ((db-bio)) (by User:Theoldanarchist) but it asserts quite a bit of notability. May or may not be authentic. No vote. — CharlotteWebb 15:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am here after a long time and hence mistaken as vandal!! i am her fan actually. She is one of our singer popularising our art across the globe and she is very actively engaging in not for profit concerts. so i am slowly collecting information. Pls Dont delete! Webmediaconsultant
Delete; no proof of notability, 42 unique G hits. --Fang Ailitalk 16:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search doesn't find much on her, and nothing that seems to satisfy WP:MUSIC, unless she searches better in Hindi. Fan-1967 16:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont DeleteShe is singing in Tamil, a regional language. Dont weigh always with an english yardstick. - This is my strong arguement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmediaconsultant (talk • contribs)
True, we shouldn't always weigh with an English yardstick. However, that means that other language sources must be found. Someone being foreign does not mean that the requirement for sources will be waived. Fan-1967 16:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you expect a Tamil Classical artist will get hits like that of a popular singer? i can not agree and here i wanna argue diamonds are rare! Will you compare a great opera player with that of Jacksons!? MJ will get million hits in google but will take the sheen away from a classical violinist of Vienna Philormonic Archestras popular guy!? Give some reasons! See she is reported in one of the prestigious local poular english daily at http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2006/02/04/stories/2006020401950100.htm or consult someone with tamil back ground Webmediaconsultant 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless this singer is also a pulmonologist or stockbroker, it appears that the results of that search are overwhelmingly for other people of the same name. Fan-1967 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What are the films songs sung by her Doctor Bruno 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fan-1967. My initial concern, and the reason for tagging it originally, was that this page had been recreated after ReyBrujo deleted it as a copyvio. Then, Webmediaconsultant removed the speedy tag, and made some changes to the article. I felt, and still feel, that the article does not meet the notability requirements. Add to that his unfortunate choice in name, which left me with the impression that he was creating an article to advertise for a client---the article still reads more like an ad to me, even in its current state. ---Charles 18:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is an ad, not a NPOV encyclopedia article, with "exemplary musician" and "renowned musicologist" (and that's just in the intro). This also has the scent of "article for hire" that Jimbo Wales has been trying to discourage for the past few months (maybe the originator's username is just a coincidence...?). She is probably notable enough in the Tamil community, but there are serious problems here with the article, and unless it's just a coincidence, we may have a visit from Jimbo regarding the initiator of the article. B.Wind 01:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that the above opinion has been given without even reading the article once. Please avoid such irresponsible opinion in AFD. THis is supposed to be a place for lively and healthy discussion and not just "i want to delete because my friend wants to delete" kind of scenario. Such Irresponsible and half baked votes/ opinions will ultimately lead to the failure of this project. Doctor Bruno 05:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire - I came to my conclusion after carefully re-reading the article. If there is a coincidence between the username and a previous matter that reached WP:OFFICE, then that is indeed unfortunate. But it doesn't change the fact that the article reads like an article-for-hire that violates WP:NPOV. B.Wind 09:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the terms "exemplary musician" and "renowned musicologist" never referred to the subject of the article, but to another renowned musicologist. Your first comment about the NPOV issue was based on the misconception that the terms were used for the subject of the article, where as in fact, it was not like that. My comment was regarding that only. Sorry if I am dumb not able to even communicate this is such a way that even a very smart guy like you is not able to understand Doctor Bruno 18:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete - I strongly object all the above criticisms by B.Wind and others.. for the following reasons...
1) First my name can not be a reason for jumping into a conclusion!lol! It is a childlike arguement!
2. Moreover consider the fact about Google result. She is residing outside the indian subcontinent and she can not have more programs in the western world where she lives. All those google results are simply documenting Carnatic Programs done in India and hence dont get carried away by the number of results. If she would have been living in Chennai then she would have definitly got more programs... more web coverage, more numbers. So kindly consider this simple fact too.
3) Then it is not an ad! Moreover see the last objection by B.Wind. He said that Chithra is mentioned as "exemplary musician" and "renowned musicologist" . But this shows how careless are they!. it is not attributed to her but to her Guru T.V.Gopalakrishnan ... Ask anyone in the carnatic field about T.V.GopalaKrishnan one of the stalwart of carnatic music. I again reproduce here what i have written for all to judge ... " She is currently pursuing her music under the expert tutelage of Shri.T.V.Gopalakrishnan, an exemplary musician and a renowned musicologist.". So please read clearly before pointing fingers. Then if my writing style is mor of an "ad" kindly note that I am a post graduate in Marketing n advertising. help me to change the tone of the article or word usage than jumping from the bench like school boys to VOTE FOR DELETION. Moreover I believe in Kaizen. So this article will be improved and i just requested some time. Dont limit wikipedia only to elite and experienced wikipedians. Even new ppl can contribue and improve slowly .. otherwise the whole concept of WP is meaningless.. Hope you (we) are not in a hurry n partison manner.
4) also note What Bruno has told as comments to Mr Wind.. and in the articles talk page... I am reproducing the same here ...
Because of the simple reason that a tamil name can be written in many ways in English, the Google Hits cannot be taken as a factor for asserting notability
Not all Indian Newspapers have web presence. Not all articles are published in Web. In case of Vernacular papers, they are not searchable as they use hundreds of different fonts
Comment Fang Ali searched with Just One way the name can be written in English. He came with 42 GHits. IT has been later explained that Tamil Names can be written in Many ways. How come you go by the initial contention even without explaining the counter points raised Doctor Bruno 18:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by user request, let's not have an argument, shall we? Guy (Help!) 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taged for speedy deletion as a website with no assertion of notability, but seems to me to assert notability. On the other hand, it doesn't look as if it passes WP:WEB. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I was the one who originally tagged it for speedy, and I definitely agree that the article no longer qualifies for that, but without any citations to back up the notability claims and meet WP:WEB I'm still not quite convinced the article should stay. -- Shadowlynk 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete If you want my sources for the Biohazard game, I'll add them today. Let me speak with the developers. -- WiiVolve 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Ok I spoke with them, and they will be sending me model renders and other images. After I upload them on the site, I'll cite them.
EDIT 2: I cited a preview website for the Biohazard game, although its still due to be replaced with the actual information once it arrives. I also added a little more information about the site's content.
EDIT 3: I cited the source for the database statistics.
Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. It might be okay, AT MOST, to have an external link in the article wii to WiiVolve. But really - this is a small business (or a group of dedicated volunteers, or something inbetween) that wants advertising on wikipedia. John Broughton | Talk 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want any advertising. Fine, you know what? Delete it. WiiVolve 03:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Is this at all notable or encyclopedic? The Mirror of the Sea 03:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay did anyone just read what I wrote? I don't like it when people criticize my work. Just delete it and get on with your Wikipedian lives. --WiiVolve 06:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It takes an administrator to delete an article. One will show up eventually and take care of this, but it might not be until the full five days for this process has been completed. (Per WP:SNOW, the process can be ended sooner, but that's not automatic.) And you do good work; it's just not (others have judged) what wikipedia was intended to be about. John Broughton | Talk 14:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as a directory entry, but that's not a speedy criterion. It is, however, a perfectly valid criticism of this article. It makes no attempt to establish the significance of the subject beyond mere existence. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article contains absolutely nothing to suggest that this building is in any way remarkable. Demiurge 16:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Somebody might wanna take a look at the template at the bottom and see if any others need to go? (there is a speedy for no assertion of notability (A7) but i am ok with leaving this up to the AFD.) Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no assertion of notability, and in doing a google search, cannot find any historic signifigance attached to it. About the only thing turned up was it showing as 47th on a list of th 100 tallest buildings of Detroit. -- Whpq 16:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (actually Merge to Detroit, Michigan per WP:LOCAL might be better), meets content policies. A height of 23 storeys was probably quite significant in 1922 anyway. JYolkowski // talk 22:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Detroit, Michigan or, possibly and article for tall buildings in Detroit, as advised by WP:LOCAL. Otherwise, the information in meets Wikipedia's content policies, in that it is verifiable, cites as a reliable source, and appears NPOV. Thus, although it is quite silly to have separate articles for each building, nothing about this article is particulary offensive to any core policy. Therefore, I suggest a centralized article for such buildings in Detroit.-- danntmTC 18:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Outsider is another mundane forum on the internet. It violates WP's Web Notability Policy - as there are several other NSider Forums spin-offs out there. ShadowJester07 16:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Simonkoldyk 21:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ShadowJester and Simonkoldyk --Egan617 00:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
How many tags does this have? I had to AfD it; maybe BJAODN can use this better. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 16:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Howard E. Scott. Notice that in the edit history, those tags were all added at once. The article was a mess at the time the tags were added (it seemed to be nothing but a collection of quotes), and was cleaned up shortly after. However, Howard E. Scott has the exact same information but written much better. And for some reason, the same user created both articles. Articles do appear to be a conflict of interest (User:Wardrums), but he is a notable musician nonetheless. And hell, if I was in a huge band from the 60s and 70s and no one had written an article about me yet, I'd probably write it myself too. Wavy G 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wavy G, plenty of notability. I added a ref and some cats to the E. article. -- Xtifrtälk 00:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete A7. Mindmatrix 18:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Was tagged as a speedy with the comment pointless and unencyclopedic but those aren't valid CSD criteria. I agree that it violates wikipedia's guidelines on notability and as such it should be deleted through AfD. Eluchil404 16:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - there is a speedy for no assertion of notability(A7). I marked it as that. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has won many national awards from various camping associations (including those not affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America). It is very well known in general in Florida and of course within Scouting circles. There are over 60,000 Boy Scouts in Florida who utilize this camp. Prior to being a BSA camp it was a hunting lodge for the Roosevelt family. This article should be kept!
Contested prod. Non notable camp Nuttah68 16:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - seems like an interesting place. Might be some useful information to somebody. I say give it a chance. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-encyclopedic, NN camp. Nothing to distinguish it from any other camp. Interesting and useful do not make something encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a camp directory. Agent 86 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - 1,480 acres is a large camping ground, and of note as any small city. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This Scout camp is one of the best in the nation and thousands of Scouts flock to it every year. This article gives important information about the camp and is better as a separate article rather than being absorbed by a less specific article. --Mtjaws 13:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (weak argument):It seems more notable than many things we have kept(masts, bus stops, minor members of nobility, short sections of 2 lane state hiways). (stronger argument):It has several thousand Ghits, showing notability at independent websites maintained by scout troops, and it has been written up numerous times in Scouting magazine, a publication of Boy Scouts of America. There is some degree of independence since the camp is owned by a local council of the larger organization, analogous to a local church being sourced to a denomination-wide publication. Edison 18:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This camp has a large reputation in Scouting, is very popular, and has won many awards. It is widely considered one of the best in the state. I myself have camped there, both for weekends and full weeks, many times. There are often troops from all over the nation and several from outside the US there. Splamo 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give the article some time to mature. It is part of a series on Florida camps as well. --evrik(talk) 03:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete It is analogous to some things WP has foolishly done at the start, and there are 2 choices: keep going the way we now recognize as wrong. and b/ start doing it right.DGG 01:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you please explain what WP has done foolishy, why it is wrong, and the official policy you are referring to? --evrik(talk) 14:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of summer camp articles on wiki and this one's more noticeable than most. Rlevse 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete does not assert notability: he was interned along with 90,000 other people and founded a private company. JChap2007 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is essentially an in-depth look at the first 10 minutes of the film GoldenEye (or the first 3 missions of the game GoldenEye 007. There's nothing to be said other than a recap of the plot, (which is already summarised on the main film page) so there's little which can be verified. WP:FICTION says "It is generally appropriate for a plot summary to remain part of the main article, not a lengthy page of its own", and this takes it a step further by being only a very small part of the plot. Trebor 16:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - WJBscribe 01:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 00:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy, non notable company Nuttah68 16:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, maybe game page should be deleted also. Simonkoldyk 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 00:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
apparent fork of Sunni Islam ("sunni" literally means 'tradition', 'traditionalism' and 'Sunnism' are if anything used as synonyms only). no notable sources asserting its distinction from Sunni Islam (or its sub-distinction within Sunni Islam). seems to be a platform for advocacy that a certain brand is the proper claimant to Sunnism. Delete as needless POV-fork. ITAQALLAH 16:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I agree, it needs work. See the article discussion page. THis is an important concept for Islam in Indonesia. Perhaps the term is used differently there compared to this article. For Indonesia the distinction between "Traditionalist" and "Modernist" is not a Sunni vs. 'other' disticntion, but applies to Sunnis - there are traditionalist sunnis and modernist. THe article does discuss features of Indonesian traditionalism (eg the mysticism) that is not part of more "orthodox" modernism. Traditionalism refers to the syncretic fushion on of beliefs that are still common across Indonesia - modernism on the other hand refers to the change towards more orthodox, non syncretic and non mythical Islam. The word traditional in INdonesia's case also refers to its blending with traditional Indonesian (and particularly Javanese) traditions from long before Islam's arrival in Indonesia. This map might help. Note that it only shows religious majorities for an area, also, the light green may seem small in area, but there are 120m people on Java. File:Map Indonesian religions.jpgIndonesia religions map --Merbabu 02:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if it is a verifiable feature associated with Indonesia, it probably belongs in Islam in Indonesia. if there are traditionalist/modernist Sunnis then it belongs under Sunni Islam. there are however, no sources for either of these two claims (so seemingly fails WP:V and WP:OR). currently, the page seems to be a replica of Sunni Islam but with some major neutrality and factual accuracy concerns as highlighted above. ITAQALLAH 02:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
as for the image provided, "traditional" is being used as a synonym for Sunni it seems. ITAQALLAH 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re merge, that might be one way. As for sources, I can try to find some - my Lonely Planet talks a bit about it but that's unlikely to satsify people! The map itself which makes the modernist/traditioanlist distinction is from the United Nations Development Programme in Indonesia - http://www.undp.or.id/.--Merbabu 03:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No - that map does not show a Sunni/Shia distribution. The link you provided suggests that Shia's predominate in the Aceh province - right up the top of Sumatra island. it also specifically says that Shia's number around 1 million (Indonesian's total Muslim population is around 200m!). That map shows a whole lot more of Indonesia as dark green than just relatively small Aceh.--Merbabu 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i had another look... i think the traditional/modernist complex may be what makes up Sunni Islam (Sunnis constitute 98% of the demography) in Indonesia. still i don't believe it should remain outside of Sunni Islam and Islam in Indonesia. the article Traditionalist Islam says absolutely nothing about Indonesia or the distinctions you are making, it is an OR piece about Sunni subsect A vs. Islamists vs. Salafis. i think it is a needless POV fork. ITAQALLAH 03:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hhhmmm - well OK. While my vote is still keep (and improve - ie, apparent inaccuracies) because in Indonesia it is an important distinction, I don't have the knowledge to buy into the broader issue outside of Indonesia. It does make me want to develop the coverage in the Indonesian context. We all have to chose our "battles" carefully!!
Just as a very general comment on the POV aspects, as long as ideas are expressed to be a POV, and not said to be fact, then isn't it OK? Ie, by clearly presenting POV as a POV allows wikipedia to have Islam, Hinduism, Christianity. regards --Merbabu 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - is Indonesia, and particularly Java the only place to have such a syncretic, mystical version of Islam? Although my knowledge of Islam is based on my (considerable) knowledge of Indonesia, I suspect it is not the only place to have such a version of Islam.--Merbabu 02:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionalist Islam that is discussed in this article is different from NU-style Islam in Java. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 08:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Syncretic forms of Islam are relatively common in parts of West Africa. This was more true before the jihadist (name historians used, I don't meant it as an insult) states of Usman dan Fodio and Al-Hajj Umar Tall. Still even today "syncretic mystical" versions of Islam are relatively common in West Africa. In the context of West Africa "traditional Islam" is sometimes used to mean these syncretic, critics call them "half-pagan", forms of Sunni Islam. These are seen as having a tension with more strictly Qur'anic, not necessarily Salafist, forms of Islam that began rising in the region in the last 150 years or so. This article, however, appears to having nothing to do with that.--T. Anthony 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure of what specific evidence there may be that this is a POV fork from Sunni Islam, but I fail to see it and the nominator has provided none. The concept of traditionalist Islam, as defined rather clearly in the article, is obviously different from Sunni Islam: the term "Sunni Islam" embraces a quite heterogeneous group and it is possible to be Sunni (in the sense of "non-Shia Muslim") and yet "non-traditionalist", just as it is possible to be Roman Catholic and "non-traditionalist". Allon Fambrizzi 06:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Also, the concerns about Indonesia have been taken out of context. The same issue Merbabu spots in Indonesia is true throughout the world: there are both "modernist" and "traditionalist" Sunnis. Allon Fambrizzi 08:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Comment: if we accept for a moment the notion that there are "traditionalist" Sunnis and "modernist" Sunnis, in what way do they not belong as subsections under Sunni Islam? there has been no verifiable evidence provided as to how traditionalism differs from Sunnism, or whether it is a subsect of Sunnism. it's inappropriate to request disproving its (sub)distinction, as that is requesting negative proof. we need to see evidence that explains traditionalism in distinction from Sunnism. the main problem i see is that of verifiability. in fact, the article is about Sunni group A and ascribing that group alone to Sunnism to the exclusion of others. ITAQALLAH 16:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, are you really saying there aren't in fact modernist Sunnis? Just asking because you may know more about this than me. Allon Fambrizzi 21:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
The group described in the article are known as traditionalists because they believe in the continuity of the prevailing religious institutions, namely, maddhabs, the ijazah system, the madrasah/dars-e-nizami system ,etc. And most notably, the authority of their leaders is legitimized primarily by tradition (in the Weberian sense. To call them traditionalists is not tantamount calling them the "true Sunnis"... it just means that they view Islam (and life, for that matter) through this traditionalist paradigm. Now, if this terminology is contested, then it can be explained in the article, rather than pretending this divide between Salafists and non-Salafists (i.e. traditionalists, in my opinion) does not exist. --Barastert 09:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pov fork. Regarding Merbabu's objection put it to Javanese traditionalist muslim or something like that. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 07:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. If the problem is that multiple groups will claim the term, then this should be explained. The divide between Salafists and non-Salafists (who I and others call "traditionalists") is too large to ignore. It has been written about endlessly by the claimants of the term, as well as by countless academics. --Barastert 09:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do you have any verifiable reliable sources affirming the existence of 'traditional islam' in distinction to Sunnism? the main issue i see if that of verifiability. as long as we can see the exact definition and distinction of this term from some good sources then there is at least a foundation upon which we can construct the article. ITAQALLAH 14:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually delete articles just because they are unsourced. I know Sunni literally means "tradition" but you keep making what I think is the untenable argument that Sunni Islam is thus coincident to "traditionalist Islam." Sunni Islam now means something much broader than that (for example, it is a status as well as a religion). Allon Fambrizzi 20:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Delete per nominator --- ALM 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep "seems to be a platform for advocacy that a certain brand is the proper claimant to Sunnism." There is no possible justification for discarding the description and position statement of a sect, except bias towards that sect, or perhaps more generally. WP is not the arbiter of orthodoxy.01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Delete After careful consideration I vote to delete. I can find no evidence for their being a "tradionalist islam" sect and the vast majority is the pov of the creator of the article. The article reitterates the beliefs of (Sunni) Sufis as can clearby be seen if you refer to the wiki-articles of the 3 "scholars" that are mentioned:- Hamza Yusuf[26], Nuh Ha Mim Keller and Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki. Content from the current version of the article should be moved to Sufism. Wikipidian 00:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Myself I'd be tempted to vote "start over." The term "traditionalist Islam" is used in scholarly sources.[27] It is not a sect, I don't think, so much as an element of Muslim societies or histories.--T. Anthony 06:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course the term will be used in academic articles, just as "tradionalist christianity" and "tradionalist judaism" are occasionally used. However passing references to an obscure undefined concept doesn't justify the creation of an article for them. One article which you linked to called Salafis (correctly in my opinion) the traditionalists [28].Wikipidian 17:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was speedy-deleted as CSD G11 spam. A DRV consensus overturned. This matter is submitted to AfD for full consideration, in particular concerning WP:V requirements. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN mall. If WP:CORP applies, it fails to meet the criteria in any real significant way. Just because one can prove it exists (until it's demolished) does not make it encyclopedic. It's just a mall. Agent 86 19:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Malls are important parts of communities. They are no different than individual companies, skyscrapers, colleges, etc. --- RockMFR 22:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this one please article is very good and has sources too plus it should meet corp guideline Yuckfoo 22:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn advert. Nothing in the article suggests notable. meshach 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- this mall is an important facility in the Willowbrook area of Houston. Postoak 01:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Remedial actions - I've added a few references and fixed a few problems. The article is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Houston. This is a new article and should be allowed some time for development. Thank you for your consideration Postoak 22:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agent 86. Leuko 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I might switch over to a "Keep" if more references could be provided which showed the mall's notability, but as it stands, there's not enough. --Elonka 03:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article asserts that it's any different from any other mall, and I don't believe malls are noteworthy by default. The reference is a dead link, and searching the newspaper's online archive does not turn up an article with the headline mentioned. Shimeru 05:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its gross leasable area shows it to be a regional mall rather than a local mall. Edison 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per WP:LOCAL, no evidence of notability outside of the local region provided. Yet more mallcruft. Xtifrtälk 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:RockMFR comment above. —RJN 23:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Willowbrook Mall has been cited in a headline as "a popular mall." Also, the mall has been one of Houston's top five mall in both square footage and return per square foot.Popular mall sells for $145 millionHouston Business Journal, March 30, 2001. Clipper471 17:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article would benefit from expansion and reformatting, but it meets the reliably sourced verifiable material required by WP:CORP for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs) 16:45, December 3, 2006
Keep. Sourced and verifiable. --Oakshade 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'delete "top 5" for a city is not notable, and neither is the mere word "popular" If it weren't it wouldn't be in business.All successful malls are popular. DGG 01:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:06, 7 December 2006 (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.
Original research. It's essentially an essay that would make a cool blog post or whatever, but doesn't belong here. The separate timelines that form the basis of the article are entirely a supposition of the author. Dtcdthingy 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that it's a pretty cool article and very interesting, but not really suitable for Wikipedia since it completely violates WP:OR and WP:V. There are no sources or references at all, and I doubt they can even be provided. I also found http://bttf.xylot.net/index.php so this article might even be WP:COPYVIO. Jayden54 17:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The dates are properly sourced from the movies/other official sources, but categorising them into the different timelines as shown is non-trivial original research in my opinion, as shown by the discussion on the talk page. So delete, despite the fact that WP:ILIKEIT. Demiurge 17:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree; it's just an explanation of the plot, much like many other movie entries contain. JoshuaSchachter 17:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as original research but it is rather cool. The article has been around for a while though and it is almost a shame to see it go. I'd say transwiki this somewhere if I could think of a good target.--Isotope23 17:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think it's original research more than a lot of other articles, and the dates can be sourced straight out of the movie. I also don't think it's so terribly novel that it can be characterized as "mere supposition" Jkatzen 17:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a work of art! Danguyf 18:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Clean Up - there is no one author of this, and the writers of the film have specifically covered most of this material in commentaries, interviews and a Q&A they did for a fan magazine (the Q&A is online)[29]. On top of this, there's the old problem that anything that can be derived from simply reporting what happens in a book or film (e.g. Marty buys Gray's Sports Almanac in 2015) results in someone charging "original research". Yes, it needs to be sourced, with citations from the two Bobs (Zemeckis and Gale) and possibly one or two Starlog articles that were written years ago (and which Zemeckis and Gale talk about in one of the commentaries). I personally would be more than willing to help with this, but I've been busy recently trying to put out similar fires elsewhere, including cites for the main Back to the Future article. Karen | Talk | contribs 18:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is the sort of thing that is absolutely fascinating and would never make it into a traditional encyclopedia. Bbrown 18:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is well executed and shows the collaboration of many wikipedians.--Effoveks 19:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's just great, and isn't truly original research any more than any other article that summarizes a movie plot or pulls from three different sources to come up with "unique" information.--Pwinn 19:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep: This is just what I needed to help with my paper on time travel in movies.! --pog 20:14 1 DEcember 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Not OR, but simple note of the story. Wiki-newbie 19:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is no more original research than any other plot summary. It would make a great research aid for anyone studying complex plots devices, time travel, etc..--IndigoSkye, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Just because something is unref'd, doesn't make it original research. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Other than the movies themselves (which describing and summarizing the events therein is no more original research than describing and summarizing the content of any other work), much of this content has been discussed in several sources related to the movie. Many of these sources cannot be found online as they are copyrighted video and audio commentary, and if I'm not mistaken, some is found in some books and magazines which are now out of print. All that said, what IS the Wikipedia standard and format for referencing sources which cannot be found online in any reputable place? LaMenta3 21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The timeline is incredibly useful and interesting to any fan of Back to the Future. Articles like this are part of what makes Wikipedia unique and wonderful. wonko 21:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not an essential or important topic, but it's not OR and since it's all based on the movies, verification isn't really much of an issue (since, well, we know what the 'references' are from the title). Sometimes a fun trivial article is fine, leave it alone. -Markeer 21:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like this; I in fact think it's bloody brilliant. I want this to belong on Wikipedia. I want it to be here. I don't want it deleted. If Wikipedia was a different place, that would be entirely permissible. However, it's not supposed to be here, and I can't just vote keep because I like the article. I really hope everyone who worked so hard on the article find a new home for it and get the applause they deserve. — Whedonette (ping) 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article just made del.icio.us/popular, so we should probably tag this AfD with the usual disclaimer. This doesn't appear to be copyvio--it predates bttf.xylot.net & the page history does demonstrate that it was gradually built up. If I'm mistaken, it should be speedied anyway. While some edits have had OR, this article isn't inherently OR--the references are the movies. We have a lot of plot summaries on here & I don't see how this is different. --Karnesky 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not original research. All of this stuff is in the movies. Changing the method of presentation != original research. --- RockMFR 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this page is deleted then half the pages on wikipedia about movies, comics, and TV shows would also have to be deleted. It's a fine page for an encyclopedia; the movies are very popular and deal with a popular subject (time travel) in a well thought out way. Mattgrommes 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up - The article should be limited to the main events of each timeline, not dwell on minute details. Wikipedia is not a collection of interesting trivia (which is what a lot of these details are), and they are a source of OR (for instance, the date the female president was elected). I mentioned this a while ago on the talk page, but got no replies. -- Ritchy 22:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It would be criminal to delete this cool, interesting article. Tlogmer(talk/contributions) 22:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — This article is documented and supported by the three films, commentaries and supplemental information included with the DVDs. Val42 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — N:OR is not a legitimate complaint against this article, which should not be considered research in the first place as it does not discover new information or advance a theoretical claim. It is simply an extremely detailed plot summary and explication of the movies' internal logical structure. N:V is not a legitimate complaint either, as the entry can be verified against the movies.
Keep. It certainly needs clean up but the article is very interesting and based on the films. Nat91 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It's an extremely thorough synopsis of the timelines of the three movies, and fascinating reading to boot. Jenigrant 06:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very interesting article. Peter S. 11:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's cool, interesting, and provides background. Does need cleanup, though. --Chetfarmer 19:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Watching a movie with a notebook in your hand isn't OR. --cosh 21:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Interesting and creative presentations of existing information don't count as OR. This should be featured, not deleted.--Thetourist 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not original research, it's a detailed plot description of an entire very popular franchise. Same would go for Star Wars or Star Trek articles. AceTracer 12:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It appears to be original research only in the fact that some poor soul took the time to dig through the movies and pull out all this information. The BttF trilogy is very convoluted in its timelines, and this article would be extremely helpful for many people who get confused watching them. I popped in my DVDs and spot checked a few things that were new to me, and it all seems to be there in the movies, so the movies would appear to be the sources. Very cool article. It would be a shame to lose it. --Willscrlt 12:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You need a scorecard to watch these movies, and this is it. Alansohn 22:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not really OR because it can be sourced. It's too much information to put into the main article, so it seems like it should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs better sourcing in places, but an excellent plot description. VKPS 00:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tough call. Without the sources, this could have been put together as a result of watching the movies over and over, which would be original research and should be deleted. On the other hand, if the sources (the scripts, for example) are readily available and put into the article, this would meet WP:V and WP:RS and make an article worth keeping. Keep contingent upon sourcing - if the sources don't appear in the article in a reasonable time frame, say a week or two, then we should revisit the AfD for a deletion. B.Wind 00:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would not be WP:OR any more than culling through the Internet looking for sources. Original research does not mean taking it upon yourself to research cited information. As an anonymous entry above stated, the entire work is cited within the movie itself. WP:OR would kick in if the person had introduced new ideas or theories, added things not found within the movie, etc. This is clearly not a case of WP:OR--just very good research of a source (the trilogy itself is the source). Putting the scripts into the article would be a copyright violation. I see no reason to lengthen the article with useless bloat to cite something anyone can see clearly by watching the DVD or videos. --Willscrlt 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not advocating putting the script in the article, but if the information is found in the script, you can cite the script instead, thus allaying your "bloat" concern, and take care of WP:V and WP:RS. B.Wind 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and not a tough call. This is a relevant guide to the plot, and for many it will be helpful. It is obviously sourced in the films, and putting in frame or time references would not really add much. Good compilations of this sort are what an encyclopedia is for.DGG 01:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Clean UpTfleming 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Clean up It has a good picture. This article could use a lot of cleaning up and it helps to explain what is happening in the movies. Cnriaczoy42 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but open to reconsidering if anyone has new evidence. W.marsh 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable defunct zine. The website doesn't even exist anymore. Reads like advertising. IrishGuytalk 17:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zum! is an important part of the history of the British small press comics maiking it notable. The other arguements for deletion are:
It is defunct - which would imply we can remove other entries for defunct publications.
The website doesn't exist - this also plays into it being defunct as it has largely trasnferred online but clicking on the link leads to the website [30].
It reads like advertising - if so then a bit of copy editting will sort that out.
I vote keep (Emperor 18:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Comment As of this morning when I put it up for AfD, the website was down. Alexa shows no traffic as well, so I imagine it was down for a while. Apparently, it is back up now. IrishGuytalk 19:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think they were talking to me - I gave my justification for my opinion in the list above. If it is my use of the word "vote" then I recommendkeep for the three reasons I give: it is important, not defunct and if the remaining problem is the tone of the content then that is something to fix by copy editting not deletion. I'm unsure how solid Alexa is - it only shows few people who use their tool bar visit the site. It could be they have had trouble with their server/hosting recently or it may only just have been listed - I note Amazon hasn't assigned a ASIN. (Emperor 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Actually, it was the way it was formatted; I didn't realize the justification above was your post. It looked like you were just saying "I vote keep", which is not the case. Apologies.--Isotope23 00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No worries I should have been clearer - added my recommendation up front followed by the justification (Emperor 01:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. This article makes no claim to notability. The fact that the publication was 'distinctive' does not make it notable in the sense of WP:NN. WJBscribe 01:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to Emperor: you stated that Zum! magazine was "an important part of the history of the British small press comics making it notable." In what way? Was it influential in the way other British comics were produced? Did it pioneer a certain technique, literary approach, or now-widely-used structure? "Distinctiveness" doesn't show notability; its influence on the trade would (the larger, the better)... and any assertion of this needs to be sourced. The current article show none of this. Reluctant delete for now.B.Wind 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, that book has ~200 fake bios out of 30,000, but there is confirmation of his existence here. Demiurge 18:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
* Deleteor expand. If there is some relevant information besides that he was son of so or so or who his children were I'll change my vote to keep Alf photoman 23:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Paucity of accomplishments compared to his sons (I checked out the whole family) unless someone uncovers a lot more. Yankeedoodledandy 02:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With brief casual research, I'm finding he played an important role in the early American Industrial Revolution. [http://famousamericans.net/plinyearle/][31][32] --Oakshade 03:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, changed vote as per above Alf photoman 12:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Dina 13:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 12:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notability, links Grinchie 17:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, from Google (not the best source for obscure 19th century activists) he seems to have been an social reformer of some note who published a newspaper and also compiled a notable report about the native American population of Massachusetts. (Passes the 100-year test by several decades.)Demiurge 17:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Demiurge. -- Whpq 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Demiurge Simonkoldyk 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the internet is not the best source for 19th century figures (unless they're Abraham Lincoln or the like), Demiurge still dug up some verification. --Oakshade 23:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Demiurge. Plenty of Google News archive and books hits for the subject. Angus McLellan(Talk) 15:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted as advertising, also does not assert notability. The creator of the page objects, so I have restored it and listed it here. – Gurch 17:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article, per Gurch, is obviously an ad. Get it out of my sight. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't intend for it to look like an ad. It's not like anything on that site makes any money. Also, one of the requirements is that the "references" are not cited. Can this be clarified? It's not like I'm quoting anything, except for the rules section. - Jaden Green 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Whpq 18:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Readro. This article is trash. Danny Lilithborne 20:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have a bit of a bone to pick. How come everyone's ranting about how this article is trash and advertising, but iSketch gets to keep their Wiki entry? We're a lot alike. - Jaden Green 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. The websites created by the owner of this site has been featured in the following:
• plime.com
• FARK.com
• RealTechNews.com
• Metafilter.com
• DailyCandy.com
• Times Newspaper
• Bliss Magazine
• FHM UK 3/2006
• Revolution Magazine
• G4TV (attack of the show "Gems of the Internet")
9. Stats of the site in the passed 24 hours are as follows: Doodles added: 25, Votes cast: 2,072, Messages posted: 902
I think the number one question most of our members have is that Wikipedia has several websites listed in its database that are very similar to ours, for example:
Even though they are similar in the "creation of art" Doodlebug is very much one of a kind, I have yet to locate a site that mimics it. If you could clarify how our entry differs from the relevence of the other entries we would be glad to make any nessecary changes.
Sincerely, Eckitis Sabrina
* Keep - Per meeting WP:WEB in references noted above. Delete - Per below. --WootyWoot?contribs 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - what references? The way I read it, there is no independent articles published about the Doodlebug site. What is provided is a list of publications that have written about other sites that that the owner of doodlebug has created. I do not see a simple statement that all thee sites have written about Doodlebug. -- Whpq 13:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per your claification here are references directed specifically toward DoodleBug:
There are still no independent sources in the article - and the appropriate place to put independent references is in the article, not here! Without anything new being added in the sourcing department, redirect to the Doodlebug disambiguation page. B.Wind 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the afformentioned links to the article, moments after adding them here. These links are listed under Press. (Added to Reference too. Should I be adding them elsewhere?
Comment - I find those two references to be unconvincing. The Yahoo reference is a daily web-cast which picks out 9 web sites each day for user voting, which is very light coverage. Plime simply has a a doodle that somebody on the web submitted. -- Whpq 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Plime reference says "A doodle from the great doodleBug site. picked by thecritters 2 months ago". "thecritters" appears to be the DoodleBug Critters (same doodle character) who says DoodleBug is his/her website. The Plime reference also says "Plime is a pliable tree of interesting links, cultivated and pruned by everyone", and http://www.plime.com/ has a "Submit a link". It looks like a selfpublished reference to me. PrimeHunter 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Wizardman 20:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FirefoxMan 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedied, author requestOpabinia regalis 00:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipedia is not for made up thing Simonkoldyk 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you are totally right. At first I was thinking "everything has to be made up sooner or later," but I see my error. for the record, its not a hoax, just obscure! Speedy that with a G7 --MrProvisions 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears insufficiently notable -- and it appears (although it's not conclusively showable) that someone affiliated with the site has been spamming other articles. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant advertising ("family and friends", "learn more", "Free MyPhotoAlbum Features". Plus all the redundant links to their website.) Demiurge 19:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Alexa rank is in top 10,000. This might not sound like much, but it's a fairly high ranking. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup - meets WP:WEB and has several third party sources. This might be the case of the messenger overshadowing the message by overselling it (pardon the pun). B.Wind 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteZero ghits for "Haldibug" outside WP. Probably should be speeedied as joke vandalism. Tubezone 18:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete hoax Simonkoldyk 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally planned to speedy it, but apparently hoaxes are not speedy delete candidates. If I've missed something in policy, please let me know. Thanks. - Eron 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:VANDAL says Silly vandalism - Creating joke or hoax articles.. is considered vandalism., however it appears a some admins don't act on that, probably because it's not directly spelled out in WP:CSD, so I guess it's kind of a judgement call on their part. Tubezone 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't speedy delete, maybe we can accelerate its process, perhaps? This comes close to nonsense (almost as a bad joke), which is grounds for speedy deletion. B.Wind 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, no. "Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes." - Eron 03:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, and recommend some tweaking of the speedy-delete/nonsense category.Cantras 03:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete, While not a hoax, the haldibug is just the nickname for a group of unidentified insects infesting some of the older buildings on the Royal Military Collage of Canada campus. If articles on the campus were added it might be under consideration to keep the article as there are some associated traditions but the article does not have enough support on it's own. Marksolo 06:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:DICDEF. El_C 11:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete transwikied article.B.Wind 01:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changed vote to neutral per Demiurge's comment on Google bias. RichMac(Talk) 12:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless this can be shown to have notability above any other given spyware program. All the Google hits seem to be explaining what it is, how to remove it or trying to trick people into installing it — a good example of the Google bias in action. Wikipedia is not a directory of malware. Demiurge 12:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the nominator thinks this spyware is non-notable, than s/he should take a look at similar articles at Category:Rogue software, and nominate appropriate ones for deletion. This AFD vote could act like a "precedent" for the other ones. —EdGl 18:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable. as per above. –– 30sman 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very notable Trojan attack. Trusting users of the Internet have their computers hijacked by this -- and then pay for the privilege of installing an even more malicious version! I just spent six hours trying to free a friend's machine of this malware. If I'd followed my impulse to get more information, I might not have had to reload the O/S. -- Dpbeckfield 11:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep per others. The Symantec site is a reliable source. There are quite lot of them are. Unfortunate, but that's no reason to keep them out.01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)DGG
The claims of "notable" above fail to provide any evidence to support these claims, and editor testimony does not amount to verification. Looking for a reliable source to support these claims of notability: Google news has two hits, one of which has the following table of prevelant threats for a single month:
I'd note that the only other blue link there also fails to provide any indication of notability. If the ink this recieves amounts only to placing seventh in a list for a single month... Barring coverage by third-party sources to establish verification per our bedrock policies no amount of "I say it's notable" is sufficient.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 09:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability -- served only one two-year term; otherwise nothing notable, distinguishing; no other info provided aside from dates of birth and death. Grinchie 19:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A U.S. Representative is notable. -FisherQueen 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't users voting to keep or delete need to sign off using their Wikipedia signature??Grinchie 19:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. First, this is not a vote, and second, the information about who said what is in the history. It's bad form not to sign, and very likely to annoy people, but it's not a requirement. Xtifrtälk 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops- Glad I checked back here. Sorry 'bout that. -FisherQueen 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being elected to Congress (even once) is sufficiently notable. Article needs expanding, as 52 of his 54 years are not accounted for. Caknuck 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Keep as members of the U.S. Congress are notable; in due course we should have an entry for each. According to his biography on the Congressional Biographical Directory site, this Member had other accomplishments also. I will expand the article. Newyorkbrad 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Congressperson. Even if Congressman McNulty served a quarter of one term, it would still be a strong keep. --Oakshade 23:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep All representatives elected to national legislatures (or appointed in the stead of an elected official who has resigned, died, etc.) are by definition notable, even if they only served a few days of a term. By the nom's definition, Gerald Ford would be a non-notable president. --Charlene 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Avoiding systemic bias doesn't mean shove it in the other direction. William_Henry_Harrison only served a month. -Amarkovblahedits 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination, while I'm sure made in good faith, may furnish an example of taking deletion criteria for notability too literally without appreciating context. National elected officials are notable in part because they represent big constituencies, have a lot of power, and are few in number (and this was true in the 1920s as well). Allon Fambrizzi 07:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Article for a film that has never been announced. It isn't encyclopedia just to have internet chatter about the possibility of this happening many years in the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. IrishGuytalk 19:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That blog doesn't actually confirm it. It even states: ...Fox Head Tom Rothman has all but confirmed... which pretty much says he didn't confirm it. IrishGuytalk 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many articles get created on movies with nothing more than an unconfirmed or semi-confirmed report (blogs are notReliable Sources) that the movie will be made. Then they get filled with totally unsourced chaff from the rumor mills about plot, cast, director, etc. Wait until there is substantial verifiable information. Fan-1967 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fanboy's OR. Wiki-newbie 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable source on announcement Simonkoldyk 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nat91 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal balling with no reliable source. If the blog cites Fox, then there should be a way for us to verify the source.B.Wind 01:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced. And crystal balling as even if true it does not mean the ultimate plot of the film (if it is made) will be that in the article. WJBscribe 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article documents the current progress this project is at. It is not trying to be a crystal ball, rather it shows the development of the initial script much like what is done on the existing article for "Superman Lives". Should X-Men 4 never be made, it is still interesting to see the facts concerning development and/or why the movie was never made. Synsukker 21:56 1 December 2006
The difference is that Superman Lives has officially been declared by the studio. This hasn't. IrishGuytalk 05:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced and unverifiableoriginal research that, for all we know, is fanfic. Recreate only when, and if, the studio announces such a movie.-- danntmTC 19:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. –– 30sman 21:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was a disputed PROD that was speedy deleted out-of-process, as confirmed by a DRV consensus. This matter is brought to AfD for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 17:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stebbins. Bigtop 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmm... an orphaned, dead-end autobiography that doesn't cite its sources. A grand slam! DeleteB.Wind 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Relisting generated no opposition, the article has had significant expansion since its original nomination, and reasons given by two "keep" comments make it clear that this article should survive to be improved upon. Agent 86 00:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A play; no evidence of notability. Redirect to Mehmet Murat İldan, its author, or delete. —Quarl(talk) 2006-11-25 19:38Z
Keep: a look at the other articles in the series (llisted in the article Mehmet Murat İldan) would indicate that these are work in progress by Tagorgora. So I would leave them be for now. I am confident that they will be improved by the author in due course. FYI, redirecting does not need to come to AfD per WP:BOLD. Ohconfucius 04:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I usually redirect if possible in lieu of deleting, without AFD. I did redirect and it was un-redirected. I initiated this AFD as a courtesy. —Quarl(talk) 2006-11-27 04:47Z
Keep. Major works by well known authors deserve an article, and an editor should not be put in the dilmemma of haveing a stub deleted because of insufficient evidence or having a red link deleted because there was no stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Agent 86 19:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article survived an AfD here with no concensus. Aylahs, for reasons given on this talk page, is determined that the article should not be merged. Once you dig into the Ghits here and eliminate the WP sourced entries and those relating to other people there is little left. We need to determine the future of the article. BlueValour 18:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as merge and redirect to Nasir al-Din Nasir Hunzai. Merge already carried out.BlueValour 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: That's a great solution BlueValour. -- Aylahs(talk) 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To ensure that the complete the discussion leading to this second nomintaion is contextualized, I have copied it here. -- Aylahs(talk) 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the proposal to delete this article in August, 2006 resulted in no concensus. As a result the bizzare decision was taken to merge the content of this article into the Aga Khan Development Network article. This was an inappropriate solution - essentially dumping the contents of an unwanted article into a context where it had no place. The new Izhar Hunzai section was deleted from its new location and has since been reinstated. This resulted in the discussion cited below.
Izhar Hunzai sounds like a great individual, certainly his father is a well known figure in Northern Pakistan. I have no objection to the existance of an article about him (as long as it is properly maintained). However, the content of this article has no place in the Aga Khan Development Network article. If the Izhar Hunzai content is to be retained it should be done here. If not, simply delete it. Please do not dump it inappropriately on other articles.
The article on Izhar Hunzai was retained following an AfD here. The balance of opinion was that it should be merged into here. If an editor is unhappy then the answer is a second AfD on which I would abstain because of my involvement thus far. BlueValour 23:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The inclusion of the Izhar Hunzai section in this article does not make sense. He is one program manager among many in a vast international organization comprising multiple agencies that each run multiple programs. There is nothing remarkable about his personal contribution to the organization that warrants his inclusion in this article. Including a section on his is akin to profiling a particular mid-level employee of Microsoft on their wiki article.
If, in the wisdom of the wikipedia community, the Izhar Hunzai content is valuable enough to be preserved it should be done elsewhere - perhaps within its own article. Dumping its content inappropriately on this article is not the solution. I am not sure how this is to be resolved within Wikipedia policy / convention, but placing an AfD on this article is unwarranted.
Accordingly, I am moving the Izhar Hunzai back to its own page and I will place an AfD on that article. I will include a copy of this discussion thread to provide context.
Question: is he notable for working for the Aga Khan or does he have any merit on his own, and if so: Why are there no references to it? Alf photoman 23:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Aga Khan Foundation(AKF) runs many rural development programs in various countries, in addition to programs in health, education, humanitarian assistance, etc. (For a list of current programs, see Current Projects of the Aga Khan Foundation. Izhar Hunzai is the General Manager of one such program. His career is impressive, but the Aga Khan Development Network institutions attract and produce many people with impressive accomplishments. He may also be notable because his father Allama Nasir al-Din Nasir Hunzai is a well respected figure in Northern Pakistan.
Ah, thanks, that's the way forward. I have merged his key details into Nasir al-Din Nasir Hunzai. If he subsequently attains significant notability in his own right he can then be broken out again. BlueValour 00:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: Good solution BlueValour. -- Aylahs(talk) 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks any sources and is a highly suspected hoax. No google results for such rank to exist in Britain. Nixer 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a hoax, I can find no references in any publications about British military history. If such a rank were to exist then there would be some info in either published form, or on the Internet. Delete this article. --SunStar Net 21:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rewrite The term seems to be used in many countries, although I can find no record of its use in British titles. It is the natural English translation of the German title Reichsmarschal, for instance, and I see a lot of references online to Napoleon having granted it to a variety of people. Also worth noting is that Generalissimo also claims that this title was used in Britain. If this is found to be incorrect, this page should be corrected also. JulesH 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & rewrite "Marshal of ..." seems to have been used in many countries, among them France, so it may have been something they've picked-up there. There certainly is a rank of "Lord/Earl Marshal of England/Irelan/UK", which have existed for a long time, and I guess it's possible that it could have been refered to as "...of the Empire" by some. It's not a military rank per se, but it's possible as the article claim, that it at one time wilded the power of the monarc. "The Lord High Admiral" - a similar royal appointee - would certainly at some time have been able to command the navy with the monarc's authority. [[34]]
My guess is that the title of Napolionic rank has been mixed together with a similar English/British one. It should be cleaned-up; the historical and current power of the rank should be checked (e.g. would it at any time ordered soldiers around in the Kings name); and would it be a rank that could be used in certain situation (e.g. if the UK leads a large multi-nasional force and one of it's general is appointeded Surpreme Commander of Allied Forces; could that person then be given this rank to "promote" him compared to other generals of the same rank (others ranked as Field Marshal or General of the Army) and to emphesize that he wielded the whole of the Queen's power over the British military).
--Koppe 22:15, 1 December 2006 (CET)
I highly doubt that since British Empire is not empire officially (just only kingdom)--Nixer 21:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "However, there has never been a recorded Marshal of the Empire" - made-up rank with no sources and no basis in history.--Nydas(Talk) 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Pure imagination. There has never been such a rank in the UK, and analogies with other countries where there is an equivalent is wholly irrelevant. And there has indeed never been a formal British Empire. Pre independence, the monarch was Emperor or Empresss of India, but just India. DGG 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was belated Speedy Delete.--Húsönd 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Simonkoldyk 21:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no context. Even if there were, we'd have a problem with a dicdef of French slang. B.Wind 01:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Tulkolahten 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Tulkolahten 01:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How much more discussion do we need? -Amarkovblahedits 01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply a generic mall in anywhere, U.S.A. I don't think it is even of particularly WP:LOCAL interest (and notably no mention of it is made at Bay City, Michigan, suggesting those who created the Sites of Interest & Business District sections didn't feel it warrented inclusion). There simply is nothing to suggest this is a notable mall locally or in a more general sense. Delete or at best merge a small mention to Bay City, Michigan.-- Isotope23 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of any sources. Shimeru 05:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Add a mention of it at the Bay City, Michigan article. It is not a particularly large mall at GLA of about 525,000 square feet,so it probably lacks regional importance and nothing is presented to show it has historical or architectural importance. Edison 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. But if sourcing isn't improved to show this is a list of publications experts in the field consider important, not just a list Wikipedians consider important, a second AfD probably won't get such a generous close. W.marsh 15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of important publications in computer science[edit]
delPOV-ridden, nonmaintainable unreferenced for such an extremely broad topic as computer science. If something or someone is really important, there must be a wikipedia article. `'mikkanarxi 20:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is this different than everything else in Category:Lists of publications in science? All seem like good ideas for articles, though they need cleaned up a bit. --- RockMFR 21:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In fact, it appears that all the lists in Category:Lists of publications in science suffer the same problems. However, as only this is the only one that appears to be nominated, I'll stick to this one. The "criteria" are far too vague or subjective and are all a matter of opinion or a judgment call. We only have the say-so of the editors adding the publication to the list that the publication is "important" No sources are provided to back up the allegation of importance. How do we know a book is a "good" introduction or survey? How do we measure "influence"? What constitutes "most advanced"? There is nothing to verify or support these opinions. Isn't this list better left where it belongs, in a library's catalog listing? There also seems to be no line drawn to keep the list from getting longer and longer. "Importance" diminishes in a crowd. Agent 86 22:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- re: above, I don't know of any library catalogs that will tell you what papers are important out of all of them :) which is sort of the point of making a secondary list. --phoebe 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any list with "Important" as a criterion. Major POV there. -Amarkovblahedits 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amarkov - what is the criteria for inclusion in such a list? WJBscribe 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The biology article has been brought here twice and kept. It was after the last time that the word "important" was added to all these lists. The chemistry list has a process to debate importance and come to consensus. I recommend that the others do the same. These lists are slowly approaching being lists of publications with a wide appreciation of their importance. If people think some entries are not important they can propse removing them on the talk page. --Bduke 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But importance is subjective. It does not MATTER if there's a consensus as to what constitutes importance, since it's still a subjective consensus. -Amarkovblahedits 02:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we often use consensus to decide whether things are notable, important, etc. In the case of the chemistry article there some criteria about what importance means. These lists allow a reader to find a book that is historically or educationally notable within a discipline, so they are important articles. --Bduke 02:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's being used to list all notable publications, then it should just be renamed to remove "important", but that's not the impression I got. -Amarkovblahedits 02:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said when one of these lists came to Afd before, the consensus was to add "important". Now you want to remove it. It just shows that AfD debates are often not consistent. --Bduke 02:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And... who said they were? Can you imagine the trouble we'd be in if results of AfD debates were binding throughout eternity? -Amarkovblahedits 02:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if these publications are notable in themselves, they are worthy of individual articles. Those can then be listed. Otherwise the criteria for inclusion is very vague and subjective. Is 'important' a lower test that WP:N and if so, how is it determined? WJBscribe 02:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It does not appear when these lists come here that people are aware that they are part of a Wikiproject - Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls. I think we need to determine whether this article meets the criteria set out there and then whether these criteria are proper for Wikipedia. If they are not, then the whole project and its created pages should go. Such a debate might lead to a positive developement rather than just deleting stuff that many editors have contributed to and found usefull. I note that the editor who started this Project - User:APH has not contributed to WP since January 2006. I do not know why but last year he was trying to make a positive contribution to WP with this project. --Bduke 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Existence of a wikiproject does not denote or import encyclopedic value or notability upon an article within the subject matter of the project. Wikipolicies prevail. Agent 86 00:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are many such groups, where individual publications are other entities are not notable enough for a separate article, but are as part of an article such as this. We right here frequently end our discussions with consensus on a merge, and that produces such articles. The precedent with other sciences has been established. There are some people who don't like such articles, but there are more who contribute to them. Contributions to such articles tend to com in bursts.DGG 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your claim is quite ridiculous. If a publication is not notable for a separate topic, then how can it be "important"? `'mikkanarxi 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This list has actually been useful to me in my job (as an academic); just now, I went specifically looking for it & came across this AFD. There may be subjectivity in determining importance, but there are also npov measures -- citation analysis, # of copies sold, historical first mention of a notable topic, etc., that can be applied to lists such as these. Individual articles for people or publications are much less useful; they don't provide the intellectual content of gathering things together, which is the point of this list. Wikipedia shines in computer science; let's keep it that way. -- phoebe 19:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be individual articles. If some breakthrough was a result of 2-3 seminal works, then write a single arricle about a "broken-through" issue and describe the papers there. Right now this eclectic collection is totally useless pile of data. I am surprized how scientists don't understand the importance of proper categorizing of things. "... in computer science", indeed. `'mikkanarxi 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"In Computer Science", indeed. There are graduate programs in computer science, there are curricula in computer science, there are overview works about computer science, and there are libraries for computer science. It's a valid category, and such a list,done right, could be useful for all of these situations. I often encounter students who want to know what the seminal works in a field were. If replaced by smaller articles, whether it's an article about a publication or an article about a "breakthrough" discovery, you're still splitting up the collection of important reading in the field. I fully agree that the article needs work; but let's keep it and improve it. Also, if you're referring to me as a scientist, I'm not a scientist; I'm a librarian, so I like to think I know a little bit about organization. -- phoebe 01:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, having this list of course doesn't preclude discussing the papers in fuller detail in the appropriate topical or discovery pages, which should be happening anyway; and a list does not preclude having individual articles about the books or papers in question. This list, like most lists, can be partly duplicative; it's another way of viewing the available information. -- phoebe 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm torn about this list. The current version gets it partly right, at least in the sense that if a publication is included in the list, it is generally important. However, there is a huge problem: Who gets to decide what's considered important? Clearly it cannot be us, that would be original research. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, our job is to be a meta-meta-publication, if you will, that is, we have to find meta-publications that actually come out and say "publication A is important, publication B is not". The current list fails miserably in that regard: it doesn't cite any sources (which would have to be meta-publications, not those publications that are considered important according to the list). None. Zero. The two external links come closest, but then again who's to decide that "frequently cited" equals "important"? I want to say: start over and do it right. Be diligent, cite sources, use sunscreen, etc. --MarkSweep(call me collect) 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Quite a few entries strike me as ridiculous. For example, a number of textbooks. However popular they are, certainly they are not groungdbreaking. Further, "Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty process" labelled as breakthru. Huh? What did it break? If it was a real breakthrough, there should be a wikipedia article no matter what someone wrote above. And so on. `'mikkanarxi 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion for textbooks on most of the analogous pages are either the classic textbook in the field or the latest most widely used book. The second part at least needs to be updated every once in a while. Be bold.DGG 02:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable organization (note: most Ghits are for a band of the same name) Frater Xyzzy 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to highly unencyclopedic content and the organization asserting weak notability.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 23:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Criteria A7, Non-Notable. DDG 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable organization that had 12 members at its peak? This article fails to establish any external notability of this organization. DDG 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no assertion of notability Cheers --Pak21 21:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I considered speedy deletion, but I couldn't figure out if it met any of the criteria for WP:CSD. If it does, let me know. --DDG 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"no assertion of notability" was a (possibly bad) shorthand for CSD A7: "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." (my emphasis). I see nothing in this article which indicates why this group stands out from any other group of friends. Cheers --Pak21 22:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, okay... yeah I'll just Speedy this then. --DDG 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
non notable business; no claim of notability in article; prod removed. Brianyoumans 20:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Simonkoldyk 21:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete the article; very few ghits turn up for the business itself, non-notable.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 23:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of article does not meet WP:BIO. There are ZERO Ghits for "Aaron Glass"+Crescendo. He's the "Director of Professional Services", not even the president of the company. Contested speedy. ...discospinstertalk 21:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no assertion of notability --Pak21 21:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sadly, not every Director of Professional Services can have his own article GhostPirate 22:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lijnema 18:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete: I think every Director of Professional Services can have his own article. There's enough room for everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.187.52 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete The unsigned comment above is presumably facetious. DrKiernan 10:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and possibly autobiography. Not every officeholder is notable, let alone ever losing candidate. Being the Democratic sacrificial lamb in a Republican stronghold is less of a claim to notability. The article reads like an extract from a campaign bio. Robert A.West (Talk) 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sacrificial lambs in a Congressional election are generally not WP:BIO notable, but his being placed on a no-fly list is. Since the pertinent information is already there, redirect to No-fly list. B.Wind 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
redirect (or keep. This is the high Adirondacks, and he did better in the district than anyone's done for a while; see the district's article. But redirect will save the history if he ever manages to get anywhere.) Septentrionalis 04:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be a major-party candidate for Congress is notable, even if the candidate loses and was given little chance of winning. JamesMLanetc 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing in the article makes him notable. Eluchil404 10:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO has a threshold of being a state provincial representative unless there are multiple non-trivial press mentions. Just 2 Ghits here, Wikipedia and his Council. Delete. TerriersFan 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "David Rock" plus "Elgin" brings up 226 ghits here. Some of those are of Elgin, IL, but still alot more than two include this article subject. --Oakshade 23:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - those hits relate to a variety of David Rock's around the world. "David M. Rock" plus "Elgin" here brings up nothing more significant. What counts is not the number of Ghits but how many of them are are relevant and significant. In the US, with its active and well-developed media, any politician that is notable should be getting large numbers. TerriersFan 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A state representative? The two-sentence "article" indicates that he is a native of Canada; clicking Central Elgin reveals that he was the mayor of a Canadian town of about 12,000 people. Take your pick - we can urge a Speedy delete for lack of context, urge delete for failing WP:BIO, or urge delete because two sentences do not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind 02:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm usually an inclusionist on these matters, but I'm not certain this entry is worth keeping. No vote, but will accept community consensus. CJCurrie 19:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Material could easily fit into Central Elgin if an editor thought it worth keeping. DrKiernan 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While it's not formally enshrined in policy, AfD precedent has generally favoured keeping articles on municipal mayors, and there hasn't been a population cutoff to determine notability — I'm sure that places no larger than Central Elgin have had their mayors' articles kept without being any longer or more detailed than this. I know precedent isn't necessarily binding, and I think maybe there should be an actual policy discussion to formally clarify whether mayors are in, out or "depends on the circumstances" at some point, but a keep wouldn't be unprecedented here. Which doesn't necessarily mean I'm urging that here; this is unquestionably a pretty barebones stub about a person whose notability is uncertain at best. No vote; just $0.02 for the pot. Bearcat 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete precedent is for mayors of ;large cities and towns to be kept but I think this is under the threshold. Eluchil404 10:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del one huge self-promo of a neo-occultism based on self-published sources. HUGE problems with verifiability. What is more, I suspect a walled garden of the whole category:Chaos magic `'mikkanarxi 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on what are you basing your assertion of self-publication? Carroll's books are published by Weiser Books, arguably the most discriminating and reliable publisher in the occult field, and Hine's books are published by New Falcon Publications, a newer press but one with a good reputation. Neither are vanity presses, print on demand or any other such thing. I recommend that you withdraw your nomination because it is based on a false assumption. —Hanuman Das 01:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Self-published" means here that the only source of info is the illuminates themselves, without independent third-party evaluation. `'mikkanarxi 01:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google has 9,700 hits for "Illuminates of Thanateros"[35]. --Tsuzuki26 01:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - As per Hanuman Das. The IOT is almost 30 years old, and it was the foundation of the chaos magic movement. I also don't see where you're getting the walled garden idea from. Chaos magic is the exact opposite of that, and anyone can jump into it at any time, from any background, and bring that vitality into the mix. --Tsuzuki26 01:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe the reference I have added to the article provides independent verification. If it is a walled garden, it's a pretty big one. Many users have contributed to the article over a space of three years. Mallanox 01:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The IOT Pact is a well established group. Is it merely coincidence that there seems to be an awfully lot of chaos magic related articles being submitted for deletion lately? - WeniWidiWiki 02:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I would generally make coments about this and why it needs to be kept. In this instance I don't think it is needed, it is self explanatory. I just think AfD's are being thrown up too easily by just anyone with no concept of the articles they apply them too. The Jan Fries, Phil Hine, Ian Read (musician) and Peter Carroll's ones spring to mind this week alone. It's getting rediculous! Wikipedia is here for information and thus for further investigation! Is it that idfficult to comprehend? If an article is deleted it cannot be expanded on ot make it better! Add a template stating it needs to be worked on than delete it. Getting tired of this. FK0071a 09:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, but the "walled garden" concern needs to be taken seriously. The articles in question should make very clear when they are reporting self-published material. Hype like "most influential and respected" etc. should be removed on sight. dab(𒁳) 11:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delwalled garden, indeed. I am a bit slow on this, but even to a beginner, the "verifications" lead to other authors verifying each other. All info within this socalled Pact is secret, we assume? Who is supplying the info? Participants to closed meetings? Any factual information in "clubbish" sites always gets called "vandalism" while other obvious fallacious statements remain protected by a few who seem to have more than a passing interest. see starwood— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.130.75 (talk • contribs)
I guess academia must be a walled garden too. Scholars works are always "verified" by reference to the works of other scholars. I know what I am, but do you know what you are? —Hanuman Das 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly, rather than move this elsewhere, here I will respond. I state that the map region Chaos Magic exists regardless, and wiki should reflect this fact. This will apply to a sub-terrain of factual information regarding organizations, and prominent practitioners, including those who exemplify the various arch.
There will always exist variations on the meme-space vis a vis each of our maps; wiki functioning as the meta, leading to disagreements, and then along to thoughtful editing. Here our fact-maps merge, on this we will all agree.
Tone down the bad faith nominations, they do not play well with others. Gift some work on content and style. Someone should mention humour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.130.75 (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 delete, OR. Proto::► 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self admitted original research: "The following material is not official to any storyline concerning Games Workshop fiction." As such, delete --Pak21 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea where the material in the article came from, but the subject concerns a real product of Games Workshop; see [36] in the bottom-right corner JulesH 21:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the chapter have had a mention in a couple of passing mentions in GW materials (most notably the 3rd Edition Codex: Space Marines), but this entire article is OR. Cheers --Pak21 21:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentMy vote is for deletion. Lack of references and clearly not from any actaul source.Lothlanathorian 19:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nicely written, but not encylopedic. 81.151.208.35 10:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only advantage of homebrew chapters is ability to make up rules and units, this offers neither, just fluff for a chapter that is apparently mentioned by GW, thus shouldn't be messed with by others (we have so few official chapters described in full, we don't need to make up more) Keije 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Notable and Orphaned. Previously nominated for speedy delete but rescued by User:NawlinWiki giving the reason "lots of family name articles on Wikipedia". But Wikipedia is not a directory or list of surnames. Everybody's surname has a history. Note that the article was created by User:Imadanat, ie. possible COI. It has also been previously tagged as not notable but this has been removed as well. The only article linking to this one is a redirect page created by User:NawlinWiki on the same day that he/she removed the speedy delete. Jezzerk 21:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I just fixed this entry because it wasn't listed properly; however, I cannot find a "first" nomination. I suspect that there isn't one and that the nomination is referring to the previous "speedy" as the first nom. No "vote" from me, just trying to save others from looking for the logs I couldn't find. Agent 86 22:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The other family name articles list notable people carrying that name. There is no such context here, and so the precedent cited by User:NawlinWiki fails. DrKiernan 10:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the original speedy nominator. Some names are notable, for sure, but not this one. If we can cite the existing information and/or list some notable people with this name, I'd be happy to keep. Vectro 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete W.marsh 02:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability. If the article is kept it'll need cleanup, too. – Gurch 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm not sure how this all works, but I wrote this submission for a class I am taking in library science and our professor is requiring us to post our papers. If it is a matter of format, please let me know how I am supposed to do it and I can fix it. If it's a matter of content, please let me know what I can do to change it to fit your guidelines. This is the first time I have put anything up here, and I have no idea what I'm doing.
No worries, if you need to keep it up for a while, you can put it on your user page. To create your user page, click the red thing in the top right of your screen that has your username on it. Then just copy and paste the article there. GhostPirate 22:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., sign your comments on pages like this by typing ~~~~ after your comment. GhostPirate 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not as well, specifically the parts that say Wikipedia is not a web host or indiscriminate collection of information. You may want to explain to your professor that this isn't quite the purpose of Wikipedia. Does he not accept papers printed out on, erm, paper? – Gurch 04:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the professor in this case -- and not a he -- and am operating with the understanding of wikipedia as an encyclopedia, "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge," as it says in the Encyclopedia entry. The branch of knowledge we are contributing information on is libraries. The entry on David Burt is one of about 20 that my students are each creating or contributing to as part of learning how to be librarians. Each entry is about someone who has influenced or is influencing the direction or the development of libraries. Along the way it's very important for librarians to understand Wikipedia, how to use it and how to contribute to it. The process is in fact also creating Wikipedians. If its a matter of voting, Keep. And if there is any issue with this approach to contributing to Wikipedia, I'm interested in hearing the argument/making any adjustments/learning. katewill 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion from another librarian: show them how to give arguments for and against the positions taken by controversial figures, using good WP articles as examples. DGG 02:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs cleanup, but I remember the flap a few years back about library Internet access and whether or not it should be filtered or censored. David Burt was pretty involved in that, as the article shows, and reliable independent secondary sources have been provided. Might not pass the 100-year test, but I think the controversy is sufficiently notable, and he's sufficiently involved, to pass for now. Shimeru 06:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but change title as per J.smith., or alternatively (librarian). "former" is POV. Much as I regret it, I do have to admit he is notable within his profession, though in a direction I deplore. And he is now a public figure. There is however plenty of documentation of his views, and the arguments to which they have given rise. DGG 02:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why this article lasted so long. It appears to be some sort of joke. There are no Google hits for ""Omega Psi Kappa"+camping except for Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. Tubezone prodded it but it was contested. ...discospinstertalk 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --- RockMFR 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable org. Seems real... just unreported in the media. If some significant reliable secondary coverage can be shown I'd be willing to reconsider. ---J.S(T/C) 22:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/keep I have added the merge suggestion templates, interested editors can move forward with a merge. W.marsh 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A definition of a non-notable fictional organisation. Unlikely to become notable. Salad Days 21:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Imperium (Warhammer 40,000)#Forces of the Imperium: Warhammer 40,000 is unquestionably notable; the question is whether Planetary Defence Forces are significant enough to warrant their own article. PDFs get non-trivial mentions in the background fiction, but they're not a playable army in their own right, so put them into the Imperium article. Cheers --Pak21 21:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I concur with the reasons given above, as it would be the more efficient way to do things. FrozenPurpleCube 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Proto::► 10:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Likely hoax that has no reliable sources (the IMDB entry is a fan-submitted hoax too) so unverifiable. This has been speedied twice already and is being recreated by sockpuppet accounts. I want this to go through a formal AfD so we can either verify its existence and keep it, or delete it properly and give grounds for future use of WP:CSD:G4 speedy deletion on the grounds of recreation of deleted material Gwernol 21:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The movie itself may actually exist. The main purpose of the article is to support the hoax article Stefan Faison (AFD'ed here). Last version of the hoax had him in the new Nancy Drew movie. That one failed, so this has been invented now. The IMDB credit has him listed as "attached" which makes no sense in a movie that has completed filming. Fan-1967 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's a hoax, it's a well-done one — apparently they've managed to extract money from the Canadian government, as well as fool several newspapers [37][38][39]. It seems to be a very low-budget movie, and there isn't any indication that it involves any of those actors, so maybe the hoaxers have hijacked the name of a real movie for their hoax? Demiurge 22:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the movie's a hoax, just the actor. The creator appears to be a sock of Saderocks (talk·contribs), previously identified as Sade Faison, presumably Stefan's sister. Fan-1967 22:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirecting is harmless. W.marsh 22:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The character is also written about on Cosmic Era list of characters with more than enough information. As such, I vote to delete, or at least redirect. TheEmulatorGuy 22:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another of the hundreds/thousands of cruft Gundam articles on Wikipedia. --- RockMFR 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. MrHarman 01:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It has been brought to my attention that the use of the term "cruft" is frowned upon as derrogatory or pejorative. I will instead defer to R. fiend and use his term: Fiction and Entertainment Compiled with Extreme Specificty. This article is feces. Consequentially 04:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The character is so minor a redirect would be giving too much priority. The ghits make it clear someone is extremely unlikely to type the name into Wikipedia. Don't get me wrong, THAT is an opinion, but is anyone in the state to disagree? Don't give me the "well someone created it" argument, because it appears to be part of a blanket creation of Gundam characters. --TheEmulatorGuy 02:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have redirected it as I have done many times in the past. I would have brought it to AFD if the redirect was reverted. --Kunzite 07:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. Though at least this character is important enough to have a full name, unlike some other CE characters with thier own pages. Edward321 17:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters in the Gundam Cosmic Era or whatever the proper page is called. --tjstrftalk 09:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be past the cut off for even minor characters. Maybe merge... but I would prefer to delete. -- Ned Scott 09:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Those who opine 'keep' have not addressed any of the concerns raised. WP:NOR trumps WP:ILIKEIT. Proto::► 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Computerjoe's talk 22:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another indiscriminate collection of fancruft. No references, and no assertion of the notability of Trek inconsistencies. —ptk✰fgs 22:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it might need cleaning up. Yes, it's fancruft, but that has always been a weak reason for deletion. Let their fans have their fun. It is a big deal among them to point out these inconsistencies. It would be better to recommend sourcing their statements which they have by referring to the episodes. Even if it's only notable among Star Trek fans, it's still notable. MrMurph101 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOR. There are books that have been written about this topic ... it's notable ... but this article references no secondary sources at all. BigDT 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, then the solution would be to source the books about this and therefore rectify the OR issue and thus provide verifiability. MrMurph101 00:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article really needs a total rewrite, though ... I am occasionally accused of having a poor imagination, but I'm having trouble seeing much salvageable here. There are multiple inconsistencies on every episode. A laundry list of them is going to be ... well ... a book. BigDT 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would say then to only use the major inconsistencies. The nit picking ones can be noted and refer that there is a book that chronicles this. MrMurph101 00:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - silly fancruft, of which we have waaaaaaaay to much. MrHarman 01:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not only fancruft and not notable, but when would this article stop? No doubt inconsistencies in the Star Trek Universe (given the vast number of episodes of the various series) extend well beyond the present coverage and are probably too numerous to list. How would one decide what the 'major inconsistencies' were? . Its a fictional universe guys- it isn't perfect, get over it! WJBscribe 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep Pretty crufty, but there are reliable sources that have been written about this. There have been books written about the Roman Empire, Talleyrand and Enguerrand de Coucy as well, but we can still have encyclopedia-length articles on them as well. Now someone will say: that means we have to keep Inconsistencies in Manimal as well. No it doesn't: not until someone writes a book on those inconsistencies. JChap2007 03:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD may highlight a larger need for wikipedia to examine the encyclopedic value of delving into the depths of fiction just because someone somewhere wrote about it in a book once.--Crossmr 06:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The notion of coherence in science-fiction universes (of which Star Trek and Star Wars are the best known) is a question that has generated much debate and this debate is culturally notable. Among other things, recall the episode of "The Simpsons" where several "nerd" characters interrogate Krusty on the coherence of Itchy and Scratchy (or something like that). There are also many, many videogame articles that address issues far cruftier and less notable than this one (Star Trek has a much larger following than most videogames, for instance) Allon Fambrizzi 07:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
The article makes no claims of such notability and there is no reference of secondary sources which suggests this is the case. What you are proposing is original research (WP:OR). --Quirex 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Psiphiorg 08:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MrMurph and Allon Fambrizzi. Newyorkbrad 22:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. VegaDark 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep as above This is the sort of article an encyclopedia is for. Compiled and useful information about major cultural works. DGG 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the ultimate problem is that this is an indescriminat collection of information (WP:NOT). Multiple, third-party sources do exist so notability and verifyability issues could probably be met by clean-up rather than deletion. Eluchil404 10:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the inconsistencies are linked back to secondary sources. None of the inconsistencies are verfiable in their current form and I doubt they will be til someone starts their own page about each and everyone. There is no citation in the article other than citing the exact episode something was claimed. You have cite the literature that CLAIMS this is an inconsistency, otherwise this is original research. Is the whole article repeated by those 3 secondary sources? Surely there is a usenet faq which documents every single one of these. Currently this fails WP:OR. --Quirex 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not enough that people claim sources exist, there needs to be some indication that they really do exist and will at some point be properly cited in the article. I see no edits to the article since the AfD started... no reason to believe anyone is actually interested in addressing the OR problems. --W.marsh 15:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article doens't assert notability, is not NPOV, and is written very unencyclopedically (even with first person references). NauticaShades 22:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's much better, now. NauticaShades 08:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is a mess, and despite its attempt to puff up the school, doesn't even manage to assert notability. —ptk✰fgs 22:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or Merge with Mission Viejo, California per WP:LOCAL). The fact that the school's been an IB school for the past 20 years and was once ranked #2 in football in the United States indicates to me that if the article doesn't cite any secondary sources (although it does cite two, now), that's because no-one's bothered to look for any before, not that none exist. Anyway, the article now cites enough secondary sources to meet WP:SCHOOL. JYolkowski // talk 23:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are guidelines because people agree to abide by them. If enough people make AfD decisions based upon WP:SCHOOL, then it'll become official. If not, the criterion that it met in WP:SCHOOL is around number of secondary sources, which is "official" since it's based around our content policies (-: At any rate, the article's a definite keeper now, so good job to those involved. JYolkowski // talk 23:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge with Mission Viejo, California. Redirects to place articles are the only effective way to avoid non- or barely-notable school pages being recreated by the students. DrKiernan 10:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep School is a three-time awardee nationwide by the Blue Ribbon Schools Program -- the highest honor an American school can receive -- and has also been recognized three times as a California Distinguished School. The school has won top awards in its athletic and extracurricular programs. All this and more, plus all of the reliable, verifiable sources we all expect from a Wikipedia article. If you wanted an excellent example for a school that passes WP:SCHOOL with flying colors, look no further. Alansohn 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What policy should we use to judge school articles? Alansohn 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one could use WP:SCHOOLS3 which seems to have about as much consensus behind it, but it would probably be a keep by that standard as well. JoshuaZ 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As neither WP:SCHOOL nor WP:SCHOOLS3 are official Wikipedia policy (yet), what standard are you using to judge notability and what standard should the rest of us use that will satisfy you? Alansohn 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per mainly Alan's comments. The school has the second best football team in the entire US, Blue Ribbon and 2 notable alumni. Furthermore, of the notable alumni, one of them is a notable football and the reference given mentioning him as an alumn explicitly connects his highschool football career to the school. JoshuaZ 23:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep — Well beyond minimum necessary level of notability. RJH (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be an unspoken assumption here that the academically stronger schools are the most notable. But this is elitism, and notability is better proven by notable graduates.DGG 02:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Academicly more notable schools generally have more written about them so they are in that sense more noted and thus more notable. Furthemrore, this school does in fact have two notable alumni one of whom has his notability associated with the school. I therefore am having trouble understanding your above comment. JoshuaZ 02:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you just now asked me on my talk page, I have taken another look. Yes, high-quality schools will have notable alumni. These alumni will have articles here or mentions elsewhere, and thus can be given as proofs of the school's quality. (You are saying we are high quality because we will have notable alumni, and we be able to prove it some day when we actually have them.) There are only 2 mentioned: one managed to get on a college football team, and one was unfortunate enough to be killed early on in Iraq. Thanks for encouraging me to take another look; I find my delete opinion confirmed.DGG 02:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are any schools notable by these bizarre standards? What standard would a school have to establish to meet the minimum you've set? Alansohn 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
California Distinguished School is not a particularly notable award. For example, there were 377 recipients in 2006, and 192 recipients in 2005. Additionally, it is a local award for California schools. How many recipients are there of the Blue Ribbon award? —ptk✰fgs 23:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete googling "lester green" and mortison only yields 63 hits, all mirrors of wikipedia.Likely a hoax.Xpendersx 22:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.... the person is a hoax, but the events might not be.[42] - then again, I can't seem to find a reliable source to back up anything in the article. ---J.S(T/C) 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe some reliable info... [43]. I can't get it to load, but google says it has something related to it. ---J.S(T/C) 23:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closing this as a keep. After discounting one newbie I get 13 keep to 6 delete votes. I'm further discounting several delete votes. One admits it needs a rewrite, but vote to delete anyway (articles that can be fixed with a rewrite aren't deleted). Another claims that being a CEO at three companies is not notable without explaining why that would be (there's several valid articles about people who are CEO of just one company). The article may using some questionable press release-based sources now, but reliable sources are available as several keep voters have pointed out. - Mgm|(talk) 11:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable--fails WP:BIO and is an example of WP:COI. Web references are either brief articles by the subject himself or interviews about the companies he's worked for. He does have a spiral-bound book available from Amazon.com--but it has a sales rank of 1,864,077. Probably not notable enough for Wikipedia. Was prodded back in October, but the notice was removed without comment. Dallben 17:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This editor appears to get his jollies about questioning my intentions. All right, I admit it: this is really a Single purpose account and has been all along. That's right! I only created it to attack this page....erm, and also to do about 75 other edits on completely, um, unrelated topics. The word is out—you can post it to your newsletter (along with that exclusive interview with Brandenburg that you've been waiting to publish). Anyhow, I thought I might mention that Stanlys212's pointed observation doesn't seem to be true anymore. Dallben 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - Stanlys212 has been spamming editors about this AfD, requesting that they "way in" on this "notable enough" article. This is not that editor's first attempt to hamper and disrupt this AfD. Doc Tropics 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is somewhat borderline and the article could use some clean up, but the subject is far more worthy of an encyclopedic entry than, well...I won't go there. But all things considered, I prefer to err on the side of inclusion in this case. --Doc TropicsMessage in a bottle 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would like some clarification--I'm a bit of a newbie and listed this page because it was flagged as unencyclopedic (See Talk:Bryan Brandenburg). From my reading of the notability guidelines, this topic clearly fails. I couldn't find any articles actually about him; rather, just articles with short quotes by him answering questions about companies he's worked for. The articles I did find are trivial and seem more like press releases than anything else.
WP:BIO states "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person."--I've looked and I just can't find anything like that, so I think it's clear this subject fails this criterion. Looking at the other criteria, I can't see any evidence that this subject "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in [his] specific field" or that he's "received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [his] work." Walking through all of the tests, I can't see any evidence that this subject is even remotely close to the underlying principles of the WP:BIO guidelines--which is why I posted the article up for discussion.
Still, I'm new here, so if I'm way off the mark here I'd like to make sense of it. So, just to clarify, in practice are individuals deemed biographically "notable" by comparing them to existing articles in the encyclopedia? I ask this because that is how I interpret the last comment and I'd like to know about the practical guidelines with respect to notability. To me, the written guideline seems to set a standard (albeit a fuzzy one) which is miles away from "keep articles if they're clearly better than others you've seen." Dallben 06:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ack, I've been outed! The truth is, I'm a closet Brandenburg fan. I had a Commodore 64, back when it was cutting edge technology, and as a result, I was supporting an article which really didn't meet standards as described by the nom. I have stricken my original comment and reversed my position. Dallben should be commended for making a strong original nomination and for following up with such extremely well-reasoned and well-written support. And this, from a self-professed newbie? Keep up the good work! --Doc TropicsMessage in a bottle 07:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice little sarcastic roast. I had to laugh :-D—and I loved the jabs at both my intelligence and my newbie status! Anyhow, I figured I should be clear that I wasn't trying to bite at you, Doc TropicsMessage in a bottle, I just wanted to understand how this process really works—so that in the future I don't nominate articles for deletion that shouldn't be (thereby wasting people's time and taking up space on the AfD pages). I've been reading and using Wikipedia for about two years now and recently decided I ought to try and get more involved. So, I read most of the guidelines and dove in. Well, that's where I'm coming from—no hard feelings and sorry if I came across as biting; I wasn't intending to. Dallben 18:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I struck out part of the above entry, since, after clarification, it turns out I was misinterpreting Doc Tropics's intentions :-P. Kudos to him for being so nice about it. Dallben 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - From the WP:BIO guidelines: (Brandenburg was CEO/Partner of Zygote - over 90% of google hits on zygote appear to be from Brandenburg era)
Alternative test - Google 555 hits - Compared to most video game programmers, 10-15x. A number of the game programmers listed in this category look like they worked for one of Brandenburg's companys.
I'm a newbie like User:Dallben, but Bryan Brandenburg is one of the grandfathers of the Utah game industry so I thought I would cast my vote. Linux_monster
Comment – 71.116.216.221 Thanks for your input! I went through the links that you posted (many of which are listed in the article itself) and did a content analysis on each one—for brevity I've posted the results on the article's talk page, so you and others may review it there. Unfortunately, one can't claim that Brandenburg is the primary subject of any of the linked articles, which is one of the main reasons I nominated the article for deletion.
Regarding the Google test you did, while around 500 hits is comparitively large with respect to most video game programmers, most U.S. university professors yield at least 10,000 Google hits. So, it is hard to claim that "a search for the subject produce[s] a large number of distinguishable hits". Additionally, it's hard to claim that Brandenburg's companies are major, since two are now non-existent and none of them were/are publicly traded.
Comment—I think I should probably clarify (lest ye accuse me of mudslinging) that I am not stating that Brandenburg is not notable in general—really, every person is within their realm of friends and associates. Rather, I'm claiming (and I feel the data supports this) that he is not notable with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. My comment on public trading was simply supporting evidence for the claim that this article fails WP:BIO. (As a side note, just being publicly traded doesn't actually make a company notable according to WP:CORP.)
Anyway, just for you Linux_monster and because I'm a glutton for punishment, I browsed the entire contents of a Google search for Bryan Brandenburg in case I missed some big story about him. In my perusal, I found out that Google's hit estimate was off (there are actually only around 215 distinct pages indexed) and that some of those hits relate to other Bryan Brandenburgs. For example, there is/was a candidate for county commissioner in Michigan and a Bryan Brandenburg Co. that existed in California in the 1920s. However, in the results there are no significant independent articles about this Brandenburg. In fact, the vast majority of articles that mention him are about Zygote Media Group, a company whose current websites don't even make historical mention of Brandenburg (As evidenced by this Google Search—note that although some links appear, Brandenburg's name does not appear in any of the pages). So, if you feel this nomination is in error, please just produce the documents and references necessary to support the notability claim—I've done my best to find some and at this point I am confident that the article has been given an unbiased review. Dallben 15:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, that's my take on the available information. You state at the end of your entry that "Bryan Brandenburg is one of the grandfathers of the Utah game industry", which seems to indicate you're familiar with him and might know more about him. Do you know of any specific articles about Brandenburg or maybe a book (independent from him) that is written about him? If we could produce a set of independent and significant articles about his connection to the game industry, that might be a way to keep the article. The only Web articles I can find don't even mention he had anything to do with the game industry (except for his credit listings in games, of course). Dallben 07:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep; a really silly AfD nomination. Does need cleanup but certainly doesn't warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.15.129 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for voicing your opinion–you seem adamantly opposed to the nomination, do you have any verifiable evidence for refuting it? It would be beneficial to have something that supports your claim. (Also, administrators please note that this user's talk page indicates several vandalism violations; while this is an IP address its user's prior reputation might need to be taken into consideration.) Dallben 21:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict, this is in reply to the IP comment), given the amount of research that went into this AfD, and the eminently reasonable discussion of it here, a summary of "really silly" seems a bit cavalier. Cleaning up the article will not enhance the subject's notability in any way. Doc Tropics 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since he has done quite a bit (and is one of the grandfathers of Utah's game industry—I knew him back in the late 1990s, but don't have any references to support my opinion). But some clarifications are in order: he wasn't CEO of Engineering Animation, Inc. (EAI). He was CEO of Software Arts International, which was acquired by EAI. At that time, he was made head of the SLC studio of EAI. Certainly a prominent figure of EAI, but not the CEO. Sculptured was a pretty significant video game developer and he was a founder of it. But I agree that all those articles that are listed that barely mention him or just Zygote should be removed. The articles he wrote could go in a "Bibliography" section. One last note, I think Brandenburg wrote most of the article himself. Don't know if that really matters, but I had to go back and remove gushing comments from the article from time to time. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since Brandenburg falls far short of the notability guidelines, having an article separate from Sculptured Software seems unneccessary. Brandenburg is listed as one of the company founders in that article and any noteworthy contributions he made to the industry should be listed on the Sculptured Software article. Dallben 00:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But he did a great deal after Sculptured (EAI, Zygote). Why limit the discussion of him to there? — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear—from your comments you seemed to be saying that his most significant contributing was in co-founding Sculptured Software. However, it may be equally appropriate to mention him in the pages for the other companies. Dallben 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I quick check press, stories,interviews Zygote Media Group Can't find zero but corporate listings on Zygote before after Brandenburg CEO. Wikipedia page Zygote Media Group says they take business since 1994. It not easy published stories or quotes at Forbes or Investor's Business Daily. When a magazine interviews game programmer, 95% of article and title is about game, not designer. I look at Dallben. Most effort to delete Bryan Brandenburg. Also SpamTwinkiesOreos. His first edit Spam. Maybe clue. Maybe he is 3dscience He spam unresourced comments Zygote Media Group page. Maybe he same time deleting old CEO. I think hidden motives. This not pleasant. 70.34.105.21 20:45 November 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I'm sure this editor is trying to say something, I just have no idea what. Can someone translate this into English? Doc Tropics 21:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the author summarized his entry for us in his closing sentence, er, approximation of a sentence. Dallben 23:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" per Frecklefoot Smurf noodle 03:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Thanks for joining the discussion. I am interested in finding any evidence of Brandenburg's notability as prescribed my by Wikipedia's guidelines—do you have references for any such materials? This would be a great place to bring them up (or, if they're extensive, you could add them to the article itself and then mention the major update here). I noticed that your only edit has been to this talk page—please be aware that wikipedia is not a democracy. So, this venue is for dicussing (and possibly establishing the validity of keeping) this article, not for voting on it's inclusion/deletion. If you have access to any evidence which refutes the nomination please present it quickly, since an administrator will most likely make a decision about this article soon. Dallben 07:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed a little typo [oops :) Dallben 15:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Strong Keep per more factual assessment of links article's talk page and my additional analysis below.
I knew Brandenburg at Sculptured which grew to almost 100 people, a very large group of indies. Avalanche Software were former programmers and sold to Disney. Sculptured was bought by Acclaim. Saffire was another company spawned out of Sculptured http://www.saffire.com/.
EAI Interactive was a pretty big deal. They did games for Disney, Hasbro, Mattel, Hannah Barbarra. Brandenburg was the top guy for the interactive division. He also did some outdoors thing with Karl Malone. Don't know much about that but published some books.
I don't know anything about scientific visualization and 3D but looks like he made his mark there too as an executive with http://daz3d.com/ and http://zygote.com/ / http://3dscience.com/ His articles are not my cup of tea, but they look widely syndicated.
Not sure what he's up to now, but I'm sure it will be big. His personal art gallery is pretty cool :) http://bryanbrandenburg.blog.com/. Looks like a competitor to Zygote and maybe that's what this is about ;)
I almost never get involved with stuff like this, but Bryan Brandenburg gave me my start. I'll always remember him for that.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 23:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. I can't find a notability guidline for businessmen, but I don't think being the CEO of 3 companies would be enough. The sources seem generally sparse and the article itself reads like a resume. BCoates 15:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. I agree with the last. Certainly this requires at a minimum a major rewrite. Michaelbusch 17:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. /Blaxthos 23:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input—I'm glad that others are contributing. Could you offer any additional reasoning / input to the discussion? It would be helpful to have more supporting evidence or arguments for the various viewpoints. As you can see, we are all across the board on this one and solid reasoning is the best way to come to a consensus. Dallben 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. A Google News Archive comes up with 60 articles so there is enough third party stuff about him to warrant a keep. [44]. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding to this discussion. I noticed that the links resulting from the Google News Archive search match up well with those already listed in connection with this nomination. In fact, I can confidently state that all of these links appear to be press releases (mostly by Zygote Media Group), in which Brandenburg is quoted. WP:BIO states that The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. So, given that these links are press releases of a company of which Brandenburg was the CEO, can you justifiably claim that these articles are published works whose source is independent of the person? In addition, can you claim that Brandenburg is the primary subject of any one of these articles? Dallben 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm finding he's one of the innovators of modern graphics gaming. Is CEO of Zygote Media Group. Being co-founder of Sculptured Software, the maker of some major A-list games, in itself shows notability. Macworld interviewed him on one of their webcast radio shows [45] and SIGGRAPH News inteviewed him too [46]. (yes, I see these are included in the stories of him cited above, but I found these on my own. :)). --Oakshade 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to the discussion. I have done a lot of searching in relation to this article and am curious if you can produce any sources related to Brandenburg's role in gaming (as implied by your opening sentence). The references that I can find are press releases about companies Brandenburg has worked for and I can't find any independent articles about his gaming contributions. In addition, could you specifically identify which of the WP:BIO guidelines (if any) these links support? I am a fairly new editor and am hoping to gain a better understanding of how accurate the guidelines are. Thanks. Dallben 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepKeepFirst let me start by saying that it is not helpful that the prod was deleted without comment and I concur with Dallben that its one reason for this article to be in AfD. That said, the subject's importance, the extent of reference materials on both him and the ventures he has been involved in, and involvement in the history of gaming and graphics is beyond dispute. One doesn't have to be Sid Meier to qualify for notability. I sense extreme Deletionism gone awry. I strongly disagree with users like BCoates since founding even one succesful company is notable. Endless blue 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for voicing your opinion—it will hopefully help this discussion to come to a resolution. I am sorry if this nomination appears to be Deletionism gone awry—please know that being a deletionist was not my intent; rather, a clearer understanding of the process and the validity of Wikipedia's guidelines. From my perspective, I saw something that was deemed unencylopedic, read the guidelines as carefully as possible, measured this article against those guidelines and found it more than just a couple of standard deviations from the mean.
So, this AfD ensued and it's been interesting. Still, I hold to my original reasoning—in fact, the experience in researching has only verified for me my claim that this article does not stand up to the Wikipedia guideline. But, since I'm a newer editor, I'm happy to concede the difference between a concrete guideline and a practical one. If you feel the guideline is wrong, express how and why, that way we all know where you're coming from.
That aside, it is helpful to know which claims fall within the concrete written guidelines and which do not. For example, you state that Brandenburg's "involvement in the history of gaming and graphics is beyond dispute," but I can find no significant references to his involvement in gaming and his verfiable involvement in graphics are press releases from companies in which he's been a prominent figure (and are therefore not independent of him). Given sufficient capital, any company can woo the press into printing something about them. So, since you are so adamant about this article being kept, can you produce references that explicitly fulfill the guideline? If not, what guideline are you actually using to justify notability and which references fulfill it? (Please note that I'm not trying to be contentious or to get you to change your vote—I'm more interested in understanding the foundation and reasoning of your argument). Thanks, Dallben 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject has been cited in a number of non-trival third party articles, include reliables sources like Forbes and MacWorld. That means that the subject confirms to the guidelines for notability in WP:BIO. The following quotation from said same guidline should explain it:
The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.
This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries except for the following:
Media reprints of the person's autobiography or self-promotional works.
Works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that just mention the person in passing, telephone directory listings, or simple records of births and deaths.
Response—It is exactly this guideline, which is clearly not being met (at least, no articles have been reproduced yet). Here's my reasoning: let's dissect this guideline and use it to filter articles from being credible candidates:
"The person has been the primary subject..." — the article in Forbes and the mention of his webcast panel interview (he was interviewed along with two other unrelated individuals) in MacWorld are great news…for Zygote Media Group and DAZ Productions, respectively. That is, the primary subjects of the articles are the companies, not Brandenburg. This is true for all of the cited sources.
"...of multiple non-trivial published works..." — It is true, Forbes and MacWorld are non-trivial, but the articles in which Brandenburg's mentioned are.
"...whose source is independent of the person." — This has probably the greatest effect on the claims. The vast majority of the links available clearly resulted from press releases made by the companies Brandenburg worked for. Therefore, it is unfair to claim these articles make him notable, because the articles are not independent of him.
That said, I am still awaiting a clear and cogent argument against my reasoning, which is based solely on the guideline. If you disagree with the guideline, then that's a different matter altogether. Since the beginning of this nomination, I've been searching and requesting for citations that really show notability. Give me the link to the Forbes article "Bryan Brandenburg: CEO" or anything like that and I think we'll have some verifiable information about Brandenburg, which we can legitimately include in this article (or even justify having an article with). Dallben 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will grant you that the Forbes article mentions him almost in passing. The MacWorld article definitely mentions him and is focused on his speaking event, so I don't agree there. However, I have a fundamental difference of opinion with you on how much of a distinction you can make between articles written about companies founded by people and articles written just about those people. Based on this logic, Steve Jobs could be considered non-notable since he's rarely mentioned outside of news about Apple or Pixar. Seriously, entrepreneurs are measured by the businesses they found, and its inevitable that those businesses and other ventures will be mentioend alongside their names in articles. I believe your intepretation of "primary" places too high a hurdle for notability. That said, I think my speedy keep vote was a bit over the top and I"ve downgraded it sine the point you make is valid (if exaggerated IMHO). Endless blue 02:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I think you'll have to agree with me that Steve Jobs is a very poor comparison to Brandenburg. Independent authors have written a myriad of books about Jobs—we're not talking about articles, but entire volumes. Therefore, Jobs clearly fulfills the guideline.
In addition, I'm not saying that we eliminate all information about Brandenburg from the encyclopedia—just that there's no need for an article about him. Other editors involved in this discussion have expressed concerns about its verifiability and content. So, if this article should be in the encyclopedia it would necessarily be significantly sparser than it is now; probably just a few sentences and some non-redundant references—in which case, why have it? As I see it, Brandenburg's name should appear in the articles for the companies he's worked for and all of the salient information about him kept there (i.e., what projects he was involved in, his major contributions, etc). One surprising factoid I learned recently was that Brandenburg worked for Zygote from January 2005 to April 2006[47]. This is surprising because almost all of the articles we can find about him are as Zygote's CEO. Anyway, I think if you can produce and article specifically about Brandenburg, or perhaps a more equivalent example than Jobs, I might be more inclined to see things your way. Cheers for your input. Dallben 08:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above point. Sharkface217 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have given my vote above. At this point, I wish to note that the article presently consists of roughly a half-dozen sentences and laundry lists of games the man has worked on, links to Wikipedia articles that do not exist, and a lot of external links of which roughly half seem only tangentially related to the man. So regardless of if the man is notable, the article needs a serious re-write. Recent activity by Stanlys212 has been entirely adding links, which is not what the article needs at this point. Michaelbusch 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nn, sources from places of employment are useless, of course they're going to offer high praise, you think they're going to say "hey! we hired a dummy and here's his work!"? Nashville Monkey 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question Did you actually read the article? I don't think so, because there are references from Forbes and MacWorld, among other references, which means it satisfies WP:BIO. Endless blue 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into an arguement with you, I'm allowed to place my opinion, my opinion is he's nn, you are free to disagree. However, don't assume to know whether I did or didn't read an article before having the nerve to place an opinion. Nashville Monkey 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's fine, but your only reason given suggests that the only sources cited are "sources from places of employment..." which is misleading and reflects poorly on your point, especially given that in truth the article has references from multiple non-trivial sources. I just thought you might want the opportunity to make a better case, but hey, its your call! Endless blue 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets primary notability criteria: There exists articles in many reliable sources with this guy as the primary subject. Regardless of what he ever did it is moot. The sources exist to write an article, we can reference them. That is all that is required. In there interest of full disclosure, I was invited here by User:Linux monster to comment. And I am. Looking at the sources cited by the article itself, and by people who have listed them above, there are more than enough good, reliable sources to write a neutral article. The fact that the article, as written, is decidedly NOT NEUTRAL is not a reason to delete. NPOV (like COI) problems are clean-up issues, not delete issues. The subject of this article deserves a Wikipedia article, even if the current one is poorly written. Start it again, clean it up. But no reason to delete. --Jayron32 01:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually inspected the articles, like Dallben did? Only very few of them have Brandenburg as a primary subject. — mark✎ 07:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Jayron. The list of articles includes major industry publications. The only reason this could conceivably have been AfD is because the article is suitable, in which case the person who AfD'd it might have done better to improve it, or suggest strongly on the talk page that someone do it..DGG 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually inspected the articles, like Dallben did? None of the articles from 'major industry publications' have Brandenburg as a primary subject. — mark✎ 07:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I strongly feel that Brandenburg is noteworthy enough for a WP article. However, the article (in its current form) needs work. All that we have right now are six sentences, a list of contributions, and then a set of references/links. The article would be far more encyclopedic if the core was fleshed out a bit more to provide more complete background information, with the references inserted as necessary. If that were done, my vote would change to Keep. That having been said, I'd still prefer to keep this article and see somebody improve it. Seventypercent 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not feel he is notable enough, fails WP:BIO. In the interest of full disclosure, I was asked by Linux_monster to have a look at this AfD. — mark✎ 07:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No notability asserted, nothing that makes it stand out from all those other Franciscan Brothers groups. Shin'ou's TTV (Futaba|Masago|Kotobuki) 19:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Redirect to Franciscan, perhaps merge a blurb into the article. The Franciscans are pretty notable, but I'm not sure any one individual group of brothers can - or should - be considerably notable. Seems to be some conflict insofar as that goes.... --Dennisthe2 23:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep and educate. The solution is to ask the editor who entered this to include some idea of what in specific they are notable for. Possibly many of such groups are notable, if we knew what they did. Given who they are, I suppose their excessive modesty can be excused.:)DGG 05:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark 23:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Old and notable religious order. Notable for support of colleges and schools around the country. I added references. Edison 19:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References include coverage in two books. Age and scope demonstrate notability. Alansohn 22:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged this one with a prod a few months ago, but it was removed with the comment "rm prod. afd this", which would imply that the person who removed the prod agreed that deletion was warranted. The article has had no substantive edits since July. The 3000ish google hits that "Winged Self" receives are mostly Wikipedia mirrors or copies of a poem mentioned in the article. Sources for "The Winged Self" are almost entirely Wikipedia-generated. The sources cited in the article are two devotional pages telling you how to worship the winged self. Whatever the "winged self" is (I'm still not sure from reading the article), if it were an important symbol, it would be mentioned more than just a few places. BigDT 23:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Demiurge - CheNuevara 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. W.marsh 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Mailer Diablo 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This "botanical garden" is a commercial "botanical garden" (read "nursery") and not a notable one. It's not even named Greenfield Herb Garden any longer. MrHarman 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Does not meet WP:CORP. Vegaswikian 08:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria. Eluchil404 10:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Though the nominator has a point, the article could be edited to group the languages based on what languages they are modelled on. (and how's that for a piece of broken English huh) --Neofelis Nebulosa (моє обговорення) 21:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
King Ivan 
15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
