Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 15
Contents
- 1 Abdulfez
- 2 List of neopets species
- 3 Bangladesh Sector Commanders Conference 1971
- 4 Batman: Capping Show Begins...
- 5 Imperial Academy (Star Wars)
- 6 Classical music blog
- 7 Kindred Spirits (musical)
- 8 Castles of New York
- 9 Howard Hall (racing driver)
- 10 Lex Coleman
- 11 Kim Lalunez (singer)
- 12 DJ Green Lantern Presents Fort Minor: We Major
- 13 Mindless Self-Indulgence
- 14 Rectal desalination
- 15 List of edible fish
- 16 "Open innovation in the financial services"
- 17 Shangwen Fang
- 18 Mr. Serv-On
- 19 Seavus
- 20 How to Get Thicker Skin
- 21 Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer
- 22 Steve Crane
- 23 QuestionPro
- 24 Chelsea High School Marching band
- 25 Andrew L. Smith, D.M.
- 26 Rohingya Jihad
- 27 Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama
- 28 Points
- 29 Andrew Benson
- 30 Cloudbuster
- 31 UMAUD
- 32 Best&USA
- 33 Jeong Da-Hooeon
- 34 Aaron Lockett
- 35 Sharon Davis
- 36 Elli davis
- 37 Adelsio Carlos Abrillo Neno
- 38 Emir Šabani
- 39 Robert Clayton Matthews
- 40 Sled-Dogging
- 41 Igor Tasevski
- 42 The Motley Moose
- 43 E-waste village
- 44 Vladimir Doknić
- 45 Revolution Parkour
- 46 Bogish Boy Records
- 47 Domain Auction Scam
- 48 Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio
- 49 Memory Banks
- 50 Michael Joubert
- 51 Chris Gorman (disambiguation)
- 52 Gevork Nazaryan
- 53 Closed.
- 54 Florida Connector Bicycle Route
- 55 Graham Correctional Center
- 56 Phineas and Ferb: The Movie
- 57 Victor Love
- 58 Fremont High School (Indiana)
- 59 Greed (comic)
- 60 The Empire Shall Fall
- 61 SureClick
- 62 Retro duo
- 63 Alan Carter (Pilot)
- 64 Palladium (Australian band)
- 65 SpiritWorld
- 66 Formula Racing Development Limited
- 67 Emotional releasing
- 68 Phasebuilder
- 69 Vic xin yi
- 70 SAP User-Group Executive Network
- 71 Spiros Medicine
- 72 GreenZap
- 73 Edward Maya
- 74 Armand Rousso
- 75 Elements of Interaction
- 76 Owen Gleiberman
- 77 Francis Lucille
- 78 Rory James MacLaren-Jackson
- 79 SolarMagic
- 80 Marijan Dong
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Abdulfez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probable hoax. Searches for sources have failed to yield anything verifying the article. Nrswanson (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent third party sources verifying this article's content can be produced.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed; appears to be a hoax, as nothing returns to verify it. Cheers. I'mperator 01:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see Broadweighbabe put this back after it had been relisted. Is everyone ok with this? I don't personally care either way. I think enough people have commented to delete WP:Snow but no rush is necessary either.Nrswanson (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of neopets species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable fictional subject. Individual neopets are definitely not notable; arguably, combining them into a list doesn't make them any more so. This article has no third-party references to demonstrate notability, and it's difficult to see how they could ever be provided. I suggest a Merge to Neopets. Robofish (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge to neopets.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and then consider whether to Merge or develop into a suitable article or list. Obvious it is not acceptable as it is. Agreed individual neopets are almost never notable by themselves, but a list of them is not subject to that restriction. DGG (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy A list of all neopet species obviously would be too large to merge into the main article and since the current one isn't even close to finished it's not suitable to keep separated or merge it yet anyway. I think posting this was premature. (P.S. I have no opinion on notability of individual neopets, but I definitely think either linking to such a list in the main article or making one is good because it improves coverage of the game itself. - Mgm|(talk) 23:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator - I hadn't considered userfication, but that would also be an acceptable solution here. The current list is indeed not close to finished; I personally doubt an encyclopaedic list of Neopets can be written, but if someone wants to try, they should work on one in userspace until it's ready. Robofish (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with fire and holy water Not even really an article, hell it starts with "*rolls eyes*" and ends with "TO BE CONTINUED". I have a strong feeling that there's a decent List of Neopets article somewhere already too, and it there isn't it was probably deleted via AfD a while ago. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neopets. So, speedy delete via G8 or whatever for recreating this. - 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norse Am Legend (talk • contribs)
- Delete. List of non-notable fictional creatures. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (G4) – recreation of deleted material via previous AFD discussion. Nothing has been addressed since previous AFD in terms of content or notability. MuZemike 03:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article seems fine to me if it gets cleaned up. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as wholly unreferenced. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, fails WP:NOTE. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 09:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of the article (the list itself) doesn't pass WP:N. The holistic approach to notability doesn't work in this case. ThemFromSpace 14:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that this is a beginning attempt at the reconstruction of a much longer article.DGG (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Neopets per the precedent in Age_of_empires_iii#Civilizations etc Jwray (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete like we did awhile back with hot wheels cars. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a logical subarticle, I'm especially disappointed at the interest in finding end runs around policies on consensus and instead delete, merge, rinse repeat. -- Banjeboi 07:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not a subject that has recieved extensive coverage. Any fictional species from this game worthy of note (through the usual WP:V) should be included in Neopets. In-depth list would be more at home at a specific gaming wiki. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Give it time to grow, and it can become quite a decent article. And with so many species, they wouldn't all fit on the main page, they just having to make a side article to hold it all, and then we'd be back here once again. Dream Focus 18:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete G4 for recreation of deleted material per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Neopets. Fails WP:NOT and has no significant coverage in reliable, THIRD party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Userfy I see no reason that a perfectly good article with nice solid facts be deleted. However, as per above, it has to be merged as a decision in the above AfD. Cheers. I'mperator 01:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For those unfamiliar with the game, it has 42 species of creatable Neopets, 4-5 special ones (creatable only under certain circumstances), and some others that are not playable. None are particularly notable, nor do any give you anything special in the game, they are just chosen based on personal visual preference. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this not simply a Speedy Delete CSD:G4 (original AfD)? Regardless, not in the slightest bit close to encyclopedic and the subject is adequately covered in the main article. Black Kite 11:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bangladesh Sector Commanders Conference 1971 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probably a hoax. There is no mention of the subject in any reliable media. The sources seem to include non-existent documents, little accepted self-published books, and all 16 volumes of a compendium. Nrswanson (talk) 22:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Hamidullah Khan book has an ISBN number that is not being recognised by the Wikimedia sofware as genuine, nor can google books locate it by isbn, author or title. The Jamil, Shafaat book likewise is not found. All the other source documents are inaccesible government archives. The only online reference given does support the fact cited but it is largely an opinionated piece that does nothing to verify the article as a whole, the words "sector", "commander" or "conference" appear nowhere in it either individually or as a phrase. SpinningSpark 23:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Spinningspark. twirligigT tothe C 01:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Spinningspark.Inmysolitude (talk) 09:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete A hoax is a hoax is a hoax... Aditya(talk • contribs) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Batman: Capping Show Begins... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prod removed without remedying article. Non-notable, unsourced, OR student revue. dramatic (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.
- Delete No significant coverage, non-notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a college program production and is therefore non-notable.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Broadweighbabe. twirligigT tothe C 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Jeffcutter (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Inmysolitude (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If you can't fix this in five months, then it's pretty hopeless. No real notability established. seicer | talk | contribs 23:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Imperial Academy (Star Wars) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This was nominated for deletion previously, and closed with arguments like 'Keep and source' and 'Keep and cleanup'. Five months later, virtually no changes have been made to the article. This is still covering a fictional topic in an almost entirely in-universe style, with no evidence of notability (real-world or otherwise). I think the page is beyond saving, and should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On further thought, Transwiki to Wookiepedia would also be an acceptable solution here. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I'd like there to be Star Wars stuff on Wikipedia. Also, I'm pretty sure Wookiepedia has extensive in-universe info about the Imperial Academy.- JustPhil 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Entirely in universe. Exactly the sort of thing to cover on Wookiepedia as it has zero real world relavence. Unless there are sources from outside of Star Wars media which discuss this topic, the article should be deleted. --Leivick (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-- as I said at the 1st afd, it is a matter of sourcing by giving the specific places in the works where the various statements come from. That's the proper sourcing from primary sources as appropriate. As a major setting element in very major fiction it's notable. Time somebody did some work on it--there probably are some external sources also by now. DGG (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...but, it isn't a major setting. --EEMIV (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone gets to overhauling this article fast. Plenty of time has been given to re-write this mess of an article but nothing has been done. Its best to delete it. Someone can always recreate later it if they feel like doing it in a proper way.Nrswanson (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Projectify/userfy to Wikipedia:Drawing board or Wikipedia:WikiProject Star Wars to encourage the right people to do the neccesary work. This solution keeps the information but doesn't let it lie around in mainspace until it's properly verified. - Mgm|(talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even in-universe, it's pretty minor. LordShonus (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's too in universe to be notable to the outside universe. I'm unclear too on which WP:RS demonstrate it's notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- clearly notable from its use in secondary sources about a major alternate universe. This needs work by the relevant wikiprojects. Now is the time to rescue it or userfy it. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Background window dressing, alluded to briefly and then forgotten, within Star Wars; wholly non-notable outside of it. --EEMIV (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Entirely plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world information. Doubtful that this topic has ever received substantial coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely in-universe and nn. Eusebeus (talk) 18:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established.--Sloane (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was a WP:Snow Keep. Inmysolitude (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Classical music blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I fail to see why a genre of blogging deserves its own article Computerjoe's talk 21:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is well referenced to multiple independent reliable sources which establish notability. It meets all of the general requirements given at WP:Notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't see why a type of blog devoted to a particular subject field does not deserve its own article. No actual reason for deletion has been given. DGG (talk) 22:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst being wary of WP:OTHERSTUFF, I feel allowing this article to exist would allow articles on oyster blogs and theremin blogs. There's a blog of effectively every subject in the world. Should we allow articles on every blogging niche which have been covered by publications about that niche? The references on that article are primarily to sections of publications on niche subjects. One would hope publications/sections of publications on classical music would have covered blogging on the subject. Computerjoe's talk 23:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Broadweighbabe and DGG.Nrswanson (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See guidelines outlined on WP:WEB. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Definitely; see the topics outlined in the References. One out of the many mentions is that by a critic for the New York Times, Anne Midgette. In addition, Alex Ross talk about it for the New Yorker. Hardly non-notable. Although it only requires one of the criteria to be met, this article also meets the general criteria for notabilitly. Cheers. I'mperator 23:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindred Spirits (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not meet WP:GNG; locally notable event with regional notability at best. tedder (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not sure it would even be locally notable. twirligigT tothe C 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent sources can be provided that establish notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I tried to find some press coverage on this but nothing came up.Nrswanson (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, beginning to WP:SNOW here... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Castles of New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probable hoax. I can find no sources online to verify this article's content or indeed the band's notability. Furthermore, the cited offline sources appear to be fakes. I can find no reference to them at worldcat or any other tracking tool for printed publications. Nrswanson (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A Gsearch verifies that this band exists, but I doubt the veracity of many of the statements in the article and given the fact that their debut album is available for free [1] and how few Ghits are actually for the band, I suspect they fail WP:BAND. twirligigT tothe C 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - obvious hoax. The "references" indicate that there is a 4000+ page book written on this subject. Drdisque (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per entry on talk page. --Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above. They actually have a really cool sound if you check out there myspace page but they clearly are a band still trying to make it.Inmysolitude (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Howard Hall (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not pass WP:BIO. No asserted notability, other than being a professional racecar driver and racing in one race, can not find any coverage of the subject, and no sources given in the article. FingersOnRoids♫ 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom Withdrawn - I withdraw the nomination. FingersOnRoids♫ 22:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. twirligigT tothe C 21:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All Indianapolis 500 drivers are notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing standards. I will improve the article. -Drdisque (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Nice catch. I find it just a little ridiculous that a racecar driver who drives in one Indy 500 race to be Wikipedia material though. Do you know the wikiproject's reasoning for this? Using WP:COMMON, I can't think of any reason why this person is notable enough to be included. How many people would search Wikipedia for a driver like this, one who participated in one professional race in his entire career, and placed 17th? Just a thought. I'm considering withdrawing the nom, seeing as the standards do support its existence. However, I do think that in this particular case, common sense does point to deletion, but that is just my opinion. Regards, FingersOnRoids♫ 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to take into account that this driver had the peak of his career roughly 100 years ago. Records from that record are spotty. The line between a "professional" and an "amateur" in that era was very blurry. Any person with the financial means to do so could buy a "speedster" and enter a major auto race. We determined that drivers who competed in the Indianapolis 500 were the most famous of their era, as the Indianapolis 500 quickly became the world's most famous race, and are thus notable. -Drdisque (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I understand that references would be particularly hard to find, seeing as this was such a long tome ago. For clarification, are you saying that he could have been notable for competing in other races, but there are no records of it? Wouldn't that go against WP:V? Sorry if I'm being difficult, but I'm still just a little puzzled as to how every single driver who's ever raced in the Indy 500 is notable. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Indy 500 is the most famous race in the world (by the numbers). This was undoubtably true prior to 1970. A limited number of drivers can compete in it in a given year. Therefore, we felt confident that the drivers who competed at Indy were the most famous drivers of their era. Also, if you go look at the article, I have found references to other national championship races that he competed in. -Drdisque (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that is fine by me, I'll withdraw the nom. Thanks for clearing it up. FingersOnRoids♫ 22:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Indy 500 is the most famous race in the world (by the numbers). This was undoubtably true prior to 1970. A limited number of drivers can compete in it in a given year. Therefore, we felt confident that the drivers who competed at Indy were the most famous drivers of their era. Also, if you go look at the article, I have found references to other national championship races that he competed in. -Drdisque (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I understand that references would be particularly hard to find, seeing as this was such a long tome ago. For clarification, are you saying that he could have been notable for competing in other races, but there are no records of it? Wouldn't that go against WP:V? Sorry if I'm being difficult, but I'm still just a little puzzled as to how every single driver who's ever raced in the Indy 500 is notable. FingersOnRoids♫ 00:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to take into account that this driver had the peak of his career roughly 100 years ago. Records from that record are spotty. The line between a "professional" and an "amateur" in that era was very blurry. Any person with the financial means to do so could buy a "speedster" and enter a major auto race. We determined that drivers who competed in the Indianapolis 500 were the most famous of their era, as the Indianapolis 500 quickly became the world's most famous race, and are thus notable. -Drdisque (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Nice catch. I find it just a little ridiculous that a racecar driver who drives in one Indy 500 race to be Wikipedia material though. Do you know the wikiproject's reasoning for this? Using WP:COMMON, I can't think of any reason why this person is notable enough to be included. How many people would search Wikipedia for a driver like this, one who participated in one professional race in his entire career, and placed 17th? Just a thought. I'm considering withdrawing the nom, seeing as the standards do support its existence. However, I do think that in this particular case, common sense does point to deletion, but that is just my opinion. Regards, FingersOnRoids♫ 23:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Drdisque. Edward321 (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Drdisque.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. WP:Snowball I'd say.Nrswanson (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Of course, we should keep this, but because he passes the notability criteria in WP:ATHLETE, not the levels of the WikiProject. The Indy 500 confers a level of professional driving that does merit inclusion in Wikipedia, even if the standards were lower in the early period. JRP (talk)
- Keep. Meets the criteria in WP:ATHLETE.Inmysolitude (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I find the argument that Lester and Lex Coleman are the same person to be unconvincing at this point, and User:Nrswanson's summary is correct that the provable information we have on this person doesn't establish notability. In addition, although much discussion took place, only User:Petri Krohn seems to be seriously advocating a keep, and given the rebuttals to most of his points from the other participants in this discussion, I see a clear consensus to delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lex Coleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is clearly a hoax. Searches for references verifying the content have yielded nothing. Note: This article is not referring to Lester Coleman (also known as Lex Coleman) who probably is notable but to a fictional person. Nrswanson (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- '
Merge' and redirectfound this and a google search suggest that this is a real person that meets WP:N guidelines. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I absolutely agree that "Lester Coleman" (Lester Coleman the II) is notable and he already has a seperate wikipedia article. This article on "Lex Coleman" (Lester Coleman the III) however is completely a hoax. None of the facts in the article are accurate. The books he apparently wrote don't exist, nor is he a recipient of any of the supposed awards (Emmy Award etc.), and he never worked for the Boy Scouts. Be intelligent and do a little fact checking before you vote keep. Doing a quick google search doesn't cut it when you have a clever hoax.Nrswanson (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Lester Coleman. This is an obvious hoax article and should be deleted. However, Lex Coleman is another name for Lester Coleman so for search reasons Lex Coleman should redirect to Lester Coleman.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hmmm .. semi-interesting enigma we have here. We have the Lex Coleman article being discussed here, a Lester Coleman article which also contains some dubious claims, a Lester K. Coleman redirect (which goes to the "Lester" article), and an apparently very real Lester K. Coleman II (a.k.a. Lex Coleman) who was a TV/Radio talking head - but mysteriously disappeared. Both Lester and/or Lex articles appear to be talking about "reporters", career(s) that revolve around terrorism and mystery. I'll be interested in following the developments of these articles - even if the only "Coleman" I am currently familiar with is the one that autographed my portable stove. ;) <* Changed my vote from "Keep" to "Merge" by the way *> Thank you to editor Nrswanson by the way for bringing this to my attention - good catch! — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge? The content in this article is all fake. What's there to merge?Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly a hoax, as per Nrswanson.---PJHaseldine (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The book Squeal does exist and is authored by a Les Coleman. No idea whether that still means this is a hoax, but if it is do not redirect. The hoax (if it is such) should be deleted, a redirect can always be put in its place afterwards if neeeded. SpinningSpark 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct but Les Colemnan is a different person than the person written about here. The whole article is a montage of misconstrued information.Nrswanson (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree that his name does not appear on any list of awards. Changing to delete. Good catch spotting it. SpinningSpark 23:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or merge to Lester Coleman – if the two are the same person. This is not a case of {{Hoax}}, but possibly a hoax that should be included in Category:Hoaxes. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply.How many times do I have to state this. The article up for deletion claims that they are two different people and the content for both articles is different. Further all of the content in the Lex Coleman is false, whereas the Lester Coleman article is basically ok. A merger is a bad idea because none of the content in the Lex Coleman article is accurate.Nrswanson (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lester Coleman article says he died in 2008. The Lex Coleman article says he is alive and working on a book. Now, is he dead or alive? Somewhere I read that he faked his own death. You are implying the opposite – his ghost writer is faking his life. What ever the truth, this is getting more and more intresting. I am working on sources. I found a Mr. Lester L. Coleman III, who may be the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am implying no such thing. This article is about a fake person who is completely different than Lester Coleman (as stated by the Lex Coleman article). I make no assertions about ghost writers. I am only interested in verifiable facts. The fact of the matter is that this article is a hoax. Searches of Time Magazine's database reveal no Lester Coleman or Lex Coleman as an author in 1997. Nor has anyone under either name ever won an Emmy Award or worked for the Boy Scouts of America. No one has yet to produce a single source which verifies the content in this article. Even if this person does exist, which I doubt, no evidence has been produced that asserts the subject's notability.Nrswanson (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a reference stating that he was the chairperson for the Faculty of Arts & Humanities of the American University of Technology in 2007. I also found four sites or pages where he advertises his services with biographic information:
- Lex Talk America
- Lex Coleman at Voice123 voice over marketplace
- Lex Coleman at MySpace
- Personal communications & conflict coaching at Skype
- Please do not remove references or links from the article while you are at the same time arguing for the deletion of the article. He does not seem to be focusing on getting people to hire him as he is most likely dead. It is however becoming evident that he is the same person as Lester Coleman. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Petri I see no source that you have found which confirms or even hints that both people are same person. Further, that source for his death is a speculative blog post. Not exactly a reliable source. (Not that it matters. He's not notable whether he's alive or dead.) You have yet to find one independent reliable source verifying any of the content in this article.Nrswanson (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. User:Petri Krohn has now found this source [2] which seems to establish that the subject is the Chairperson, for the Faculty of Arts & Humanities at American University of Technology. However, that university is a very minor academic institution so I don't think it confers any notability to Coleman. (Fails WP:ACADEMIC) It does, however, establish that he is indeed a different person from Lester Coleman. However, the rest of the article's content still remains unverified and with the lack of independent verifiable sources the subject stills fails WP:Notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Broadweighbabe and Nrswanson. Without any sources verifying the content or establishing any of the guidelines at WP:Notability this article should be axed.Inmysolitude (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am the person who tagged the Lex Coleman article with the merger tag. I am identified as User:Anne Teedham who has been blocked indefinitely, and will no longer be a participant in anything Wikipedia. However, before my departure, my employer has requested that I "clean up" this particular loose-end because User:Petri Krohn asked me why I think the two people are the same. My reasoning goes like this: Both articles (before the above respondents began to make alterations) claimed that Lex and Lester were twin brothers yet both brothers attempted to secure authorship of the controversial book Trail of the Octopus. In addition, both brothers wanted to possess the accolades of their achievements with respect to: writing, to the Middle East, and to a variety of common interests. When I began looking closer, I found their picture; yet it was the same picture being shown at two locations: a biography of Lester at Intergirtynews.wetpaint.com while simultaneously being used to identify Lex at his website Lex Talk America. To me, this is not an indication that they are twins; rather it is an indication of a narcistic hoaxster. I doubt seriously that twins would use the exact same photographic glossies when presenting themselves. All humans have vanity. When I wrote what I wrote about Lex, Lester, Lester K., Lester Knox, II, III, Thomas Leavy, and Tomas O'Leary, I was engulfed in the particulars surrounding everyone's participation in Pan Am 103, Inslaw, and in Lester Knox Coleman's court cases. Everything suggested that a hoax was being perpetrated by a very skillful fabricator, one who had been released apparently from prison, and had returned to his Middle Eastern associations, and was trying to erase a portion of his past while also securing a more exciting future. When I suggested the merger, I was not suggesting that the entity should be punished for something like sockpuppetry (*grin*) but rather that his "biography to the world" should contain whatever a combined article could offer, and in a way which was an interesting biography of a very colorful character. It looks like you guys are onto the right track. Goodbye. I must disappear now and accept my demise without whining. (I am sorry that I really do not have the time to go into greater detail as my employer's Wikipedia IP may be permanently blocked due to whatever is done at this moment from this IP.) Annie Teedham 24.170.224.225 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure exactly what to say Annie. You've presented an interesting story but with no concrete facts. For those commenting on this discussion I suggest that you stick to facts. As it stands, there are still zero sources backing up the claims of this article. Several of the facts are provably wrong. There is no evidence establishing this subject's notability. Regardless of the convoluted diatribes above, this article still fails to meet the requirements established at WP:Notability.Nrswanson (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is interesting original research, but I don't see how "Lex" passes WP:N just yet. Perhaps someone will follow up and produce a reliable source; then we can have a "Lex" article, or put the "Lex" material into the "Lester" article, whatever is supported by the sources. Studerby (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged - I have now spent the evening looking for references. I found a copy of Trail of the Octopus on-line. Everything in this article that is verifyable is about the same person as the article Lester Coleman. I have moved what can be referenced or attributed to a source to Lester Coleman. I am now going to turn Lex Coleman into a redirect. I ask that someone speedily close this AfD as merge. If you insist on arguing, maybe you should start a AfD on Lester Coleman. If you decide to delete the version history of Lex Coleman, I ask that you move it into my namespace. There is still something there that might be referenced. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. - Why are these two the same person:
- The four promotional sites listed above are the same person ("lextalkamerica") because the sites link to each other.
- Lex Coleman ("lextalkamerica") is evidently the university professor in Lebanon because he says so (and because his site shows "University Students in Lebanon Learning with AVI")
- Lex Coleman the voice actor and teacher is Lester Coleman the secret agent, because his sites contain biographical information consistent with that of Lester Coleman, including writing the same books, producing the same radio shows and winning the same Emmys as Lester and even sharing his photograph.
- -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly oppose merge None of the evidence you have presented proves anything. Everything you have produced goes back to personal websites, blogs, and other highly unreliable sources like myspace. I see no value in merging any of the content from this article into Lester Coleman as the info is highly suspect. Further, it would be better to make a clean start and wipe out the obvious hoax side of this article's history.Broadweighbabe (talk) 04:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears user:Petri Krohn has attempted a merger of Lex Coleman and Lesther Coleman against consensus here. I still strongly question whether the professor at American University of Technology can be connected to the American intelligence officer based on existing sources and think the merger a bad idea. He has also tried to pre-empt this AFD by redirecting the article on Lex Coleman to Lesther Coleman and removing the AFD notice. Broadweighbabe has reverted him once and I have reverted him once. Petri Krohn would you please rephrane from unilaterally making decisions and let this AFD take its natural course. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that both articles have been from the start under heavy hoax attacks, see Talk:Lester Coleman#Dead or alive?. Everything needs to be verified and a large number of edits needs to be reverted. However this whole discussion on merging is totally moot. Everything that is verifiable needs to go to Lester Coleman. As for the notability issue; you cannot find Lester Coleman notable and Lex Coleman not notable, as they truly are one and the same persion. The only source for them being distinct is Wikipedia as edited by Coleman himself. He created this article as Lexcolemanllc (talk · contribs). I am to blame for marking the aticles with the {{Distinguish}} hat-texts. When I found the articles in January they made no reference to each other. I considered proposing a merge, but seeing that the articles had been heavily edited by Lex II and Lexcoleman (talk · contribs), I tought Lex would know if he and his "brother" were the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this article asserts (or at least asserted before your edits) that they are indeed two different people and since no evidence has been produced that definitely links the professor at American University of Technology to the American intelligence officer I think we have to assume for the moment that they may be seperate individuals. I personally disagree with your decision to put the American University of Technology information in the Lester Coleman article for this reason. There's really nothing here that can be merged because its all suspect info from shady sources. Almost all of your current edits to Lester Coleman is original research Petri. What you are doing replaces the hoax article with something just as bad, if not worse, since its more likely to be believed by the casual reader.Nrswanson (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that both articles have been from the start under heavy hoax attacks, see Talk:Lester Coleman#Dead or alive?. Everything needs to be verified and a large number of edits needs to be reverted. However this whole discussion on merging is totally moot. Everything that is verifiable needs to go to Lester Coleman. As for the notability issue; you cannot find Lester Coleman notable and Lex Coleman not notable, as they truly are one and the same persion. The only source for them being distinct is Wikipedia as edited by Coleman himself. He created this article as Lexcolemanllc (talk · contribs). I am to blame for marking the aticles with the {{Distinguish}} hat-texts. When I found the articles in January they made no reference to each other. I considered proposing a merge, but seeing that the articles had been heavily edited by Lex II and Lexcoleman (talk · contribs), I tought Lex would know if he and his "brother" were the same person. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The material I moved to Lester is sourced from Trail of the Octopus — like most other stuff there. Of course it should not be stated as fact, as was done here, but be attributed to the book, unless other sources are found. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's absolutely inaccurate Petri. You added much more than that to the article, including the third paragraph of the lead which should be removed entirely as original research. ([3]) Nrswanson (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←I felt I had to strike my !vote, simply because I do not know the answer here. It's all very interesting, and I'll try to keep track of it over the coming weeks - but I don't feel I have enough solid knowledge to supply any input for now. Good Luck to all. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 04:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary of above. I hope this summary will help other editors comment or close this AFD. As of right now the only concrete evidence about this person is that he is a professor at a minor academic institution in Lebanon. This is only supported, however, through sources directly related to the University which are therefore not really independent of the subject. The supposed notable academic achievement of Audiophonic visual isolation has been deleted in a seperate AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audiophonic visual isolation) for being non-notable. Clearly fails WP:PROF. There is no evidence found in extensive searches which proves he was ever a White House Correspondent, winner of an Edward R. Murrow Award, winner of an Emmy Award, producer with ABC News, or Director of Public Affairs for the Boys Scouts of America. These are all high profile positions/awards and there should be evidence easily found for all of these. As there isn't this whole thing is a major hoax. User:Petri Krohn believes he is the same person as Lester Coleman, but thats really only his opinion as no evidence establishes this. He has merged some of the information in this article into that one, which I view as a woefully bad editorial decision. That issue, however, is really seperate from this AFD and should be addressed at Talk:Lester Coleman. In conclusion, this article is clearly full of false information and what little is true fails to meet WP:N requirements for notability.Nrswanson (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete: hoax from repeat offender.. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim Lalunez (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Probable hoax; no significant google hits for "Kim Lalunez" [4] or "킴 랄루네ㅈ" [5] outside Wikipedia. Prod and hoax tag removed without explanation. PC78 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This image is related, trying to find out if I can find it anywhere else to identify subject. — neuro(talk) 20:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Identified, subject of photo is Leah Dizon. Speedy delete as hoax. — neuro(talk) 20:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful Delete does not appear to meet WP:N guidelines at this time; beyond the asianload.com forums. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. twirligigT tothe C 21:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DJ Green Lantern Presents Fort Minor: We Major (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable mixtape with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Prod removed because "No need". TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with DJ Green Lantern - individual effort does not meet WP:N guidelines at this time. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability shown, no reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Just another non-notable mixtape. Needs substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None offered, none found. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Even as a Fort Minor fan, I find this page to be in complete excess. The template on the right is also copied to the letter from Fort Minor. Also, as some others have said, completely irrelevant and non-notable. Merge relevant info to DJ Green Lantern and delete everything else.~九尾の氷狐~ (「Sumimasen!」 「Dochira samaka?」) 10:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mindless Self-Indulgence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable EP released in a limited edition of 500 (!) by someone who later went on to start a notable band with the same name as this EP (minus the hyphen). Artist is not notable outside of the aforementioned group. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "limited edition" isn't included in NALBUM. Generally, EPs and albums tend to me notable. Sceptre (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please point out where in WP:NALBUM it says that any EP is notable? Especially by a non-notable artist. Without any sort of media coverage and without charting, I don't see how this EP, which reached an extremely limited audience, could possibly be notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By a non-notable artist? He's the lead singer of Mindless Self-Indulgence. I think in this case notability is inherited. Sceptre (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. Notability is not inherited. Period. But, to humor you, even an EP by a notable artist is not automatically notable. Pretend the EP was by the band, not a solo release before the band existed. It came out before the band was popular and only 500 people got a copy. It still didn't chart nationally, and the likelihood of any media coverage is pretty much non-exisitant. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By a non-notable artist? He's the lead singer of Mindless Self-Indulgence. I think in this case notability is inherited. Sceptre (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please point out where in WP:NALBUM it says that any EP is notable? Especially by a non-notable artist. Without any sort of media coverage and without charting, I don't see how this EP, which reached an extremely limited audience, could possibly be notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence as the James Euringer link does. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment merge the track listing to same. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. The ep has not been shown to be notable. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and/or redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. TheClashFan (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mindless Self Indulgence. Just because an EP isn't independently notable, and was released as a solo outing by a musician who's notable only for later going on to join a notable band, doesn't mean it's not worth at least making note of the EP's existence in the same article in which the musician himself receives his own primary coverage. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rectal desalination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I stongly susspect that the term was directly taken from this newspaper article [6] whose author, Cecil Adams, I believe coined the term "Rectal desalination" specifically for use in his commentary on the survival of Dougal and Lynn Robertson. I don't believe this term is widely known or accepted outside of this individual newspaper article. Nrswanson (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete is my vote, with good explanation from Nrswanson making the reason clear. --Fremte (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep google search suggests it is a valid topic — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. That's faulty logic. A google search does not establish notability. Please see WP:Notability for an explanation on wikipedia's notability policy.Nrswanson (talk) 21:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nrswanson. In my view this is a clear case of WP:Neologism.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Straight Dope generally does not give its sources (it prefers to perpetuate the image of Cecil Adams as genius) and does not, in and of itself qualify as a reliable source. Eauhomme (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I found this entry entertaining but I agree with nrswanson's assessment of things.Inmysolitude (talk) 06:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I, too, find this amusing, but the citation does not even claim it is notable. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I know I heard of this elsewhere, and since it appears to be dangerous, I hate losing the warning. However, I can't find any decent citation. Paul Studier (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The author of the source used in this page mentions a book that he found the term used in (Surviving the Extremes: A Doctor’s Journey to the Limits of Human Endurance), and I don't find any other mention of it besides that. Matt (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The consensus may be to delete, but should DreamFocus or Mgm want this page anywhere, there's nothing to prevent userfication Fritzpoll (talk) 10:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of edible fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There's no evidence of reliable sourcing of information here, and despite having been tagged for improvement for several months, there's no apparent plan for making this list exhaustive (it's far from it), or alternatively, limiting its scope in a useful and straightforward way. This article, because it implies that certain things are safe for human consumption, should be held to a high standard of verifiability: it's effectively making a health claim, and should be properly referenced like an article about human nutrition. Therefore, delete. TheFeds 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Template:Fishing industry topics should be amended to remove this article's link, if the verdict of this AfD is "delete". TheFeds 19:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The problem I see is that this is really a how-to article. There are already guides for commercial and sport fishing and also survival guides on what can be eaten in an emergency. WP is not the place for this and as the nominator said could pose a danger. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as list, I don't see a how-to issue. Perhaps not our proudest moment, but I've seen more ridicules lists (some cartoon characters for example) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the article states, 99% of fish are edible. A List of inedible fish would be much more interesting and useful. -Drdisque (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A List of poisonous fish is really what's needed. Then we will feel safe to eat all the rest. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Drdisque.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think what this article is trying to be is a List of fish that are caught or farmed commercially on a large scale or something similar. While I somewhat understand the point of the list, I think it would be hard to define criteria for inclusion in the list. How would we determine if a specific species is farmed or caught commercially on a large scale? While there would be reliable sources for a lot of them, the hard part would be defining "large scale". And if we don't include "large scale" then if someone catches some obscure fish for commercial reasons, then it could be included, which wouldn't really be appropriate. If someone can think of a better title than my redlink above, and they are willing to source the list, I wouldn't be opposed to something like that. I also like the idea of a list of poisonous fish as well. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This could be a useful list. I'd prefer to have a list of all fish, with a category box next to them listing if they were edible, edible only after processing somehow, or inedible. Plus perhaps say if they are commercially farmed, or wild. Or if the wild ones are poisonous, list the fish twice, once as (wild) and the other as (farmed). Dream Focus 04:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 09:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Linguist and Dream - could be improved into a useful list - needs someone to adopt the list —G716 <T·C> 09:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy or projectify. I see the potential as mentioned by Dream Focus, but I also understand why it was nominated. The list, in its current form duplicates the category, and it cannot easily be improved beyond that status. I therefore believe that moving this in userspace or project space until clear inclusion guidelines are set (and referenced) and more than a list of names is included, is the best option. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All sorts of problems with this one-- unsourced, indiscriminate, vague. As the article has said from the beginning, "This list is simply a copy of list of fish common names where the most obviously inedible species are removed." It's added that "99 percent" of fish are edible. The fact that a particular type of fish can be eaten doesn't mean that it is on a menu somewhere. A well-sourced list of inedible fish would make more sense. Mandsford (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The list seems to be a bunch of original research. It is also farily indiscriminate and has no sources whatsoever. There's also no information on why the list is notable. ThemFromSpace 15:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - List of poisonous fish or List of inedible fish would be interesting, but this List is to broad ("99% of fish are edible") and is :Category material. As we browse :Cat's we can see the :Cat Tree is breaking it down to provide more info than this Article does (only a name). See Category:Lists of fishes Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the edibility or inedibility of fish (as by humans) may be one way of dividing the fish per a category, but not lists that can never be exhaustive and where members will likely be in the 10's or 100's of thousands. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As pointed out above, a list of edible fish is rather ridiculous, and possibly even open to legal action if it contains inaccurate information. A list of poisonous fish, with a brief indication of why they are poisonous, would be interesting. Also a list of commercially important fish, with a brief indication of why they are commercially important. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about a list of the top 20 or top 50 most commercially important fish? Northwestgnome (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone can catch such a list in a published source, reel it on in. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 09:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Open innovation in the financial services" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete -Advertisement for an unnotable book LetsdrinkTea 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability. twirligigT tothe C 21:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAP. It really does read like an advertisement for the book. Matt (talk) 08:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete per nom." Bearian (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shangwen Fang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:BLP1E - person famous for one event. WP:NOTNEWS may also apply here. While this may have been a well-reported story at the time, it does not seem to me to have demonstrated lasting notability; the 'edits to Wikipedia' section also raises problems with self-reference. If this is kept, it should be renamed to something like '2006 Taiwan cat abuse incident' - but I'm not convinced we should have an article on the subject at all. Robofish (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per precedence set at Youtube cat abuse incident. LetsdrinkTea 19:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild delete. Person was notable at the time, but there has been no reliable updates on his whereabouts or activities, and therefore no reason to believe that the person is notable at this point. --Nlu (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google research suggests notability even if article doesn't cite particularly good sources. — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If subject was "notable" at a point in history, that notability continues. Clara Bow has not done much recently, but her past notability maintains article keep-worthy-ness ... whatever, you know what I mean. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement you're making is WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And the converse of 'notability is not temporary' is that if a person's fame is temporary, then they were never really notable. That's how I understand it, anyway. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement you're making is WP:NTEMP - notability is not temporary. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If subject was "notable" at a point in history, that notability continues. Clara Bow has not done much recently, but her past notability maintains article keep-worthy-ness ... whatever, you know what I mean. ;) — Ched ~ (yes?)/© 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA. If the cat abuse event is notable, there should be an article about the event, not the person. twirligigT tothe C 21:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA.Nrswanson (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite to focus on cat abuse incident as an incident; the details of the person's life do not seem relevant, and have caused him harassment. --GRuban (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:N/CA.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Serv-On (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't Ben, due to fact that three of his albums have made it to the Billboard charts and one of those albums made it to #1 on a Billboard chart. He also released two album for a major label, the label being No Limit/Priority. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Ben Why don't we have an article on this album? Tarheel95 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy Keep, I'm going to assume good faith here, or assume the nominator needs glasses. His debut album has appeared on 3 Billboard charts alone, let alone the success of his other ones, a fact that was already stated in the article before you AfD'd it. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent reliable sources can be found that establish notability. Did none of you notice that this article gives no sources? Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not having sources isn't a reason for deletion, it just means the article doesn't have sources. You can actually go look for them yourself you know. Actually, you don't even need to do that because if you look above I provided one from Billboard itself. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 22:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per cr. 2 of WP:MUSIC. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources found by Esradekan.Nrswanson (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I never heard of this guy, but Billboard.com confirms he had a #1 album on the R&B/Hip-Hop album chart. That's good enough for me under WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seavus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless independent sources can be found that establish notability.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pure spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How to Get Thicker Skin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a personal website, not for Original research/posting a personal essay. — ERcheck (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My guess would be that this is somehow linked to the editor's proactive solution entry which has been deleted multiple times. Regardless, it has no sources and very questionable notability. Wperdue (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
- Delete. This is pretty much a skin care guide and is certainly original research, both of which do not belong on Wikipedia. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article should stay because people would like to know things like this. Morts623 (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. If "people would like to know things like this", they should try a Google search, or even *gasp* visiting a library. twirligigT tothe C 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR, HOWTO, Unverifiable, not encyclopedic, you name it, this article has it. -Drdisque (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or doesn't have it. :) Delete per reasons stated. PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WTF?!?! --Boston (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. After examining all comments and arguments, I've found there to be a clear consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BK. No references, redlink author, and a search for reviews or the like turned up nothing. Information is certainly verifiable, but not notable. PROD removed with a WP:GHITS reference, which is not a valid anti-deletion argument. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in the interests of full disclosure, I have read parts of this manga (mainly the first few chapters). ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N and WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable sources, no extensive reviews. Licensed in China,[7] but no Chinese reviews found either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A rather large number of people are reading the English fansubs of it, making it notable. You don't get mentioned on over 30 thousand sites without being notable. I am wondering about the Japanese name for it, since Googling that gets no results in quotes. Can someone who reads Japanese please correct that? Which magazine was it featured in, there two with similar names, various sources pointing at each of them, and how many subscribers do those magazines have? The overwhelming majority of manga does not get any mention in third party major news articles, so you can't use that standard for notability. Dream Focus 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can give you the links and you should have fun with translation tools ja:惑星のさみだれ | ja:ノート:惑星のさみだれ | Young King Comics --KrebMarkt 20:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kanji is correct per the magazine it is serialized in.[8] Lucifer and the Biscuit Hammer, however, appears to be a fan translation. And yes, we do use the existence of real, reliable, third-party references for manga same as all other areas. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, history has shown that isn't always the case. Since there is no possible way to meet that requirement for most articles. Even many confirmed bestselling novels do not get any reviews in major newspapers or other notable third party sources. It is up to those in the discussion to decide if the rules of common sense and ignore_all_rules are more important than wikilawyering. Dream Focus 00:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couple of things. First, IAR is only to be thrown around when it improves the Encyclopedia. This article isn't Encyclopedic: there are no sources, the book isn't notable, etc. Second, don't accuse someone of Wikilawyering when you are doing so yourself. Finally, my own common sense tells me that this should be deleted. I don't see any sources whatsoever. IAR should only be applied in edge cases; not in every single deletion argument you get into. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been around for years, first in a major magazine publication, and then published on its own. It has a very large number of people reading it online(illegally in English). It has been translated and released in another country(Taiwan). That makes it as notable as any manga out there. Dream Focus 00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your position basically boils down to, "It exists, therefore it should have an article." You clearly do not have an understanding of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines, and it is clear that you are not interested in understanding them either. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. My position is, it clearly exists, and is read by significant number of people, and therefor is notable. Dream Focus 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which has zero basis on our policy and guidelines and is therefore toothless. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dream Focus You can't write an informative and veriable article without any RS Third party coverage. --KrebMarkt 14:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. My position is, it clearly exists, and is read by significant number of people, and therefor is notable. Dream Focus 00:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your position basically boils down to, "It exists, therefore it should have an article." You clearly do not have an understanding of Wikipedia's polices and guidelines, and it is clear that you are not interested in understanding them either. --Farix (Talk) 00:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been around for years, first in a major magazine publication, and then published on its own. It has a very large number of people reading it online(illegally in English). It has been translated and released in another country(Taiwan). That makes it as notable as any manga out there. Dream Focus 00:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Couple of things. First, IAR is only to be thrown around when it improves the Encyclopedia. This article isn't Encyclopedic: there are no sources, the book isn't notable, etc. Second, don't accuse someone of Wikilawyering when you are doing so yourself. Finally, my own common sense tells me that this should be deleted. I don't see any sources whatsoever. IAR should only be applied in edge cases; not in every single deletion argument you get into. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 00:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no, history has shown that isn't always the case. Since there is no possible way to meet that requirement for most articles. Even many confirmed bestselling novels do not get any reviews in major newspapers or other notable third party sources. It is up to those in the discussion to decide if the rules of common sense and ignore_all_rules are more important than wikilawyering. Dream Focus 00:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I seconded the prod. The Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer (Hoshi no Samidare/惑星のさみだれ) 6-ongoing series by Satoshi Mizukami. As Collectonian wrote it is licensed in Taiwan but not in US/UK, France, Germany, Italy & Spain. Unwinding Google hits for "Lucifer and Biscuit Hammer" -wikipedia keys words drop to 99 pertinents hits most of them are blogs, forums, scanlation websites and the likes. My conclusion is to delete as not notable enough and very awkward verifiability of the current content. However i will defer to anyone able to provide RS Third party coverage of this manga. --KrebMarkt 19:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The number of GHits is irrelevent. The number of people who may have read it is irrelevant. The fact that scanlations exists is irrelevant. There is absolutely no reason why anime and manga should be exempt from the notability guidelines. Anyone who repeatedly makes such foolish arguments time and time again at AFD shouldn't be commenting in the AFDs. If you are not willing to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, then you shouldn't be here. --Farix (Talk) 20:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pretty much per nom. This book is verifiable and has a lot of Ghits, but nothing can be found about it to show why it meets WP:N, which calls for multiple independant third-party sources discussing the book in detail. ThemFromSpace 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per everyone else but Dreamfocus. You'd think they'd learn by now that google hits are meaningless for establishing notability. Scanlations certainly are meaningless, pretty much everything is scanlated these days, notable or not. Not convinced over the article title either, since when were articles listed by their subtitle? Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is apparently a series that started recently and is ongoing. Don't you think we should give it some time? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It started in 2005...four years ago. That isn't recent, even if it is on-going. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That series started on June 2006 with 6 volumes released and still ongoing serialization so that is not a recent series. However i do acknowledge that its article on Wikipedia is fairly recent. Giving time to someone who created article because he/she read its scanlation is rather meeuhhh IMO... --KrebMarkt 22:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? if it has not had time to gain notability then it is too early for it to have a Wikipedia article. You are making an argument for delete even though you !voted keep. SpinningSpark 01:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, nevermind then I guess. The link I looked at said something about it starting in mid-late 2008. Though if it's like four yars old and ongoing there should be something worth looking up. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Note - the summary and character list have been removed as they were copied from scanslation sites. While they may be illegal sites, WP:COPYVIO of their summaries does still apply (irony noted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Dayewalker (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BK; GHITS don't quality. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add the Japanese sources I cannot find. I hate this stuff, but was able to find and add some English sources.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you did not find reliable sources. Instead, you linked to fansub sites which, of course, violates WP:COPYRIGHT. Please be aware that almost everyone who has said delete above are members of the anime/manga project so we saw all of those sites and knew they were not appropriate, hence their not being mentioned. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll revert the entire thing. Thanks for cluing me in, as nothing on those sites alluded to their being translations, illegal or otherwise. Kind of why I asked for input from Japanese editors... as I do not read Japanese. I had to go with what I had. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]Oops, you did it yourself.... and accused my good faith providing of sources as if I was intentionally trying to sneak something in under the radar. PLEASE NOTE ALL, I added no material to the article, and simply did what I could with English Google to find sources. And I suppose I can now safely assume that Collectonion, being able to read and write Japanese, will now herself provide properly translated sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you did not find reliable sources. Instead, you linked to fansub sites which, of course, violates WP:COPYRIGHT. Please be aware that almost everyone who has said delete above are members of the anime/manga project so we saw all of those sites and knew they were not appropriate, hence their not being mentioned. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my comments and offer apologies to Collectonion. My thought here, is that if this tripe is as popular for as many years in Japan as it seems to have been, someone over there has surely written about it... but I do not read Japanese. I invite any other editor who does not, might also themselves recuse themselves from commenting... but that's up to them. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey hey, there aren't any sources to provide. I've looked. Why does everybody always look down on the nominator these days? I didn't just AfD this randomly, to see if sources would come up... I've actually spent time looking for sources, and no reliable sources that help this pass the notability guideline exist! ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC) I said the sources you added violated copyright, not coyvio, and was trying to say I'm sure you just didn't realize it but the rest got cut off. All four very clearly note that they distribute fansubs and scanslations. Everyone one I just looked at either had "fansub" or similar right there in the main menus or on the very pages linked. Such sites are illegal and should never be linked to per Wikipedia's copyright policies. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I can add reliable sources that allow the page to pass WP:V. That isn't in question here. My main issue with this article is that it, in no way, passes WP:N, namely WP:BK. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete edit warring magnet; waste of time fancruft; etc etc William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Someone added a review by Mainichi Shinbun into the article. (Despite what someone said in an edit summary, the piece is not just a summary.) I should add that just because a person looked on the internet and didn't manage to find any sources does not mean that there are no sources or that "this article is hopeless". _dk (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. That is a summary. Have you translated it at all? It doesn't give a review of the series anyway; it merely restates what the manga's storyline is. Furthermore, I can clearly point out that there are sources. Again, this easily passes WP:V. I've read the manga. I know it exists. But the sources required for it to pass WP:BK don't exist, just like I said in the nomination statement and in other locations. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 11:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two paragraphs contain the thoughts of the writer, so along with the summary, that counts as a review to me. _dk (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that may be an issue with my Japanese understanding. Even if this is a review, this article still doesn't pass WP:BK. Specifically, point 1: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 12:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that this article can be kept if more sources can be found other than just one. I can agree with that. _dk (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, with more SIGNIFICANT coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Proof that the series exists does not mean it is notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, keep repeating that and Mainichi Shinbun will become insignificant, unreliable, and non-existant. A review dedicated to the subject is insignificant, wow. The stuff people pull off to make their point.... _dk (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, read the actual notability guideline. One review is not enough to show notability. One review is not significant coverage. Nor did anyone say that the review was unreliable nor non-existant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I said before you said no and acted like I don't read policy. Funny how we can be in agreement and yet still argue. It is hard to communicate on the internet after all. _dk (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, read the actual notability guideline. One review is not enough to show notability. One review is not significant coverage. Nor did anyone say that the review was unreliable nor non-existant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — fails WP:N & WP:BK. Jack Merridew 11:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to Yahoo Japanese dictionary, 批評 is "(a) criticism,a review ((of))" Dekkappai (talk) 13:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've got no interest in working on it, and there'd be no point in it anyway, as I've seen how these things increasingly work: A group of self-appointed "guardians of
moralitynotability" decide what we can and cannot read and write about and refuse to consider the other side. Working on the article will result in immediate content blanking reports filed at editor comment boards, etc... Anyway, in spite of the lengthy discussion above, the simplest of Google News searches pulled up a review in a major Japanese paper. This shows 1) there is bound to be coverage elsewhere and, 2) no one here is interested in really working on the article, only in deleting it. Dekkappai (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If there is bound to be coverage, why have around 20 people been completely unable to find it? While I personally feel that anime/manga should be held to a different notability guideline due to the complete lack of reviews, Japanese or otherwise, the fact remains that sources do not exist. Additionally, I would prefer you to avoid bad faith accusations that nobody wishes to improve the article. Again, like I've said before, I would be happy to add the verifiable content such as release information and plot material, but I simply don't see how that would help the page pass this AfD. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR (t • c) 13:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My main issue is whatever you write, you will have to prove it. Keeping this article is meaningless if it's near devoid of content. The last time, i asked in Japan project for someone willing to look for Japanese reliable proofs of notability and guess what, i was royally ignored. --KrebMarkt 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Closed - page does not exist. WilyD 10:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The subject has requested deletion via the system in 2611800. The article actually meets inclusion standards, however, since the argument could be made that the subject is only notable for one event, I bring this to the community for discussion. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Subject is not only notable for one event, no criteria for deletion is met in my opinion. -Drdisque (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is clearly notable and nothing in the article appears to be objectionable or damaging in any way to the subject. I can't think of a valid reason to delete this article.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject meets our normal notability requirements. Don't think it suffers from 'one event' as he palyed multiple games for two seprate teams in fully profesional leagues which is considerably more than one event (especially given that playing one for one team would've met our normal notability requirements). Dpmuk (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As the original author. If the subject himself has said he doesn't want a page, then I would rather the page was deleted rather than causing offence. WikiGull (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have proposed speedy deletion, which I think is within my right as article creator and sole contributor. WikiGull (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is your right to propose deletion but it is the right of the community to decline it. TerriersFan (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - we delete pages on marginally notable people when they request it. However, in this case the subject incontrovertibly meets WP:Athlete. There is no BLP violation and I see no reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- QuestionPro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable software package, fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, though I must admit I would have had it as A7 (web content), for it's apparently an "online survey tool". It's own website does call it "software" (which I hadn't noticed when I put it up for CSD), however, so I suppose that AfD is the right way to go. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N and WP:WEB as no third-party sources can be found that describe how it affects the world as a whole. ThemFromSpace 20:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cleaned up the article and liked to awards and pricing.rhoehn 19 March 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.99.18 (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without independent sources to support the article it fails WP:N.Nrswanson (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chelsea High School Marching band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable school marching band. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ORG. No independent sources that indicate notability. Jd027talk 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If reliable sources can be found, then merge useful information into Chelsea High School (Chelsea, Michigan). Otherwise, delete per nomination. TheFeds 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per The Feds -Drdisque (talk) 22:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete per TheFeds. twirligigT tothe C 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Chelsea High School (Chelsea, Michigan). Marching bands are always significant in the context of a school page. TerriersFan (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew L. Smith, D.M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability concerns. Does not meet criteria for notability for academics. — ERcheck (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nominator, non notable LetsdrinkTea 18:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. THF (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ACADEMIC, and the fact that there is a lack of independent sources to indicate notability. Jd027talk 18:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete publications don't amount to notability. Only one look promising, his thesis [9], which appears to be uncited according to GS. Fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom and Pete.Hurd.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rohingya Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable group with virtually no Google hits. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:ORG. Jd027talk 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: per WP:V, WP:N. --Ragib (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete No such thing exists. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Dank55 CSD G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. The decision to delete is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_15#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama. Closure by uninvolved admin --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am restoring this AFD discussion, and overturning its attempted closure by Sceptre. Sceptre is a POV participant on Talk:Barack Obama, and therefore his closure of this AFD is in violation of AFD. I Stevertigo created the subpage as a place to develop a possible article. It was nominted for AFD, here, but another user later changed that AFD to "speedy delete". User:Dank55 decided on his own to delete the subpage, claiming it to be an "attack page." That deletion is currently being reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_15#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama. Discussion will continue there on the matter of the deletion, and the merits of the page are still being discussed here. |
- Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This repeatedly recreted article Criticism of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been speedied five times[10] for reasons of Wikipedia:CSD#A3 (no meaningful content) and Wikipedia:CSD#A10 (attack page), and is now semi-salted to prevent new and IP editors from recreating it. There has been considerable interest in creating the article voiced at Talk:Barack Obama so a full discussion on this article is probably warranted.
- Also please note {{Criticism of Barack Obama}}, which seems to exist only as a template to redirect to the nominated article. That should probably be speedied as no content / inappropriate use of a template. Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article in its present form is a skeleton "working version", currently a list of links and unsourced disparagement, plus some disparaging comments about other editors, all created by a long-time Wikipedian who obviously intends that the article gets filled out and sourced eventually. However, I am concerned that as a criticism article it is inevitably a POV fork and will be impossible to maintain in a neutral, encyclopedic way. The author has already commented about "whitewashing", so presumably the goal is not to present a balanced, fair biography of the President (which would be redundant with his bio article anyway) but rather to coatrack criticism. That would then become a WP:BLP violation.Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Filled with unsourced allegations and borderline vulgarities, attacks on other editors and advertisement for his own recently created essays like the don't like it one, which i've nominated for speedy. He is of course, welcome to work on any article within reason in his sandbox (or on his PC, or on any off wiki location he choses). The sandbox work, i suppose, comes with the proviso that his effort doesn't exist simply to attack other editors or otherwise add to disruption. This "article" in its current location, and current form, has no redeeming value on its own merits, and seems sure to generate further conflict and disruption towards no discernible productive end.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to userspace. Mainspace isn't for a sandbox draft this rough. There are certainly grounds for and the ability to create a well-sourced well-written neutral article on the topic, however. THF (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy per User:THF. NB: I've added the "noindex" magic word to this article while the AfD's in progress, for safety's sake.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete blatant subversion of talk page consensus on Talk:Barack Obama Sceptre (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep There is enough material concerning multiple issues which are the subjects of reliable sources. Also, please see; Criticisms of Harry Reid, Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Criticism of Vladimir Putin and Criticism of Tony Blair for some examples. I will tag the article for further information, cleaning up and references - as all three are needed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also WP:POVFORK. We already have a "public image of..." article. A "critcism" article isn't needed. Sceptre (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference the above "keep" !vote is from the creator of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a lie! I did not create this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, in the last three examples, they're definitely POV forks. FDR ranks consistently as one of the top three presidents, Putin has an approval rating in the high eighties, and Blair is above-average for a Labour PM. I highly doubt they present a duly-weighted view of their subjects. Sceptre (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference the above "keep" !vote is from the creator of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also WP:POVFORK. We already have a "public image of..." article. A "critcism" article isn't needed. Sceptre (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With rewrites, the POV issue can be taken care of. This is a legitimate topic. LetsdrinkTea 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The POV issues can't be taken care of. This is an unfixable content fork. If we got the POV issues sorted out (improbable), we'd have an article that'd be identical in purpose to Public image of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. Sceptre (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The POV issues can be taken care of by editors. Also, an article discussing well documented criticisms is not supose to be about the subjects "Public image," it is about well documented criticisms which are verified by, and the subject of, reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The POV issues can't be taken care of. This is an unfixable content fork. If we got the POV issues sorted out (improbable), we'd have an article that'd be identical in purpose to Public image of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. Sceptre (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this article would be allowed to persist, it would turn quickly into a honey pot for any editor who does not like the current president to post their criticism. There is no way such an article could maintain NPOV and may even become a launching board to push dubious sourced statements into other articles. Brothejr (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is underconstruction and has been drastically edited; there is still much work to be done. It needs to be stated that wikipedians are capable of writing articles that discuss criticism. For an example please see, Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion by Dank
edit- Compiled from Talk:Obama, User talk:Dank55, and User talk:Stevertigo
Talk:Obama : This recent creation was tagged as an attack page for speedy deletion, and I just deleted it. I just wanted to make sure we're clear ... well-sourced, balanced information about anyone, including Barack Obama, is and always has been welcome in Wikipedia, but pages which exist only to disparage their subject will be deleted on sight, no matter who the subject is, per our policy on biographical material of living persons. As with any other deletion, anyone who disagrees is welcome to take the article to deletion review. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk Dank55: You deleted a subpage article that is currently being discussed, citing your own POV assessment of what that article contains, characterizing such in a particularly POV way, and not having participated or given regard to discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama. Restore it now. Thanks. -Stevertigo 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk: Stevertigo: Please see Talk:Barack_Obama#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama for my rationale. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk Dank55: You appear to have certain opinions about the value of that particular subpage draft. You might also have similar opinions about the creation of such subpages, the usage of templates transclusion to aid article development, and the motivations of the creator. All of them are certainly valid opinions, in the context of discussion. To simply delete something outright requires more than rationale; it requires that such rational be accurate and have the support of other editors. We are discussing that issue now, and your deletion only serves to destroy and stigmatize that strange process of discussion first, delete after. You made some charachterizations on the Talk:Obama page, not rationales. Restore it, and join the discussion. -Stevertigo 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Talk Dank55: As I mentioned on your talk page, the proper forum to review whether the deletion was appropriate is deletion review. Feel free to take the page there, and please let me know so I can watchlist the discussion. I'm always ready to learn if I've done something wrong. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk)
Points
editIn progress Stevertigo 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC): I'm listing the various points made above here, to organize them by concept, deal with any redundancy, and indicate which particular concepts are valid and which are specious, and why. And how.[reply]
- has been speedied five times
- has been considerable interest in creating the article voiced at Talk:Barack Obama so a full discussion on this article is probably warranted
- repeatedly recreted[sic] article
- template to redirect should probably be speedied as no content / inappropriate use of a template.
- article in its present form is a skeleton
- a list of links
- unsourced disparagement
- disparaging comments about other editors,
- created by a long-time Wikipedian who obviously intends that the article gets filled out and sourced eventually.
- a criticism article is inevitably a POV fork
- will be impossible to maintain in a neutral, encyclopedic way.
- commented about "whitewashing" presumably means the goal is not to present a balanced, fair biography
- which would be redundant with his bio article anyway
- to coatrack criticism
- would then become a WP:BLP violation
- "filled" with unsourced allegations
- borderline vulgarities
- attacks on other editors
- sandbox comes with the proviso that his effort doesn't exist simply to attack other editors or otherwise add to disruption.
- advertisement for his own recently created essays like the don't like it one, which i've nominated for speedy.
- He (Stevertigo) is welcome to go somewhere else:
- to work on any article within reason
- in his "sandbox" PC, or on any off wiki location "he choses"
- article in its current location, and current form,
- has no redeeming value on its own merits,
- seems sure to generate further conflict and disruption
- towards no discernible productive end.
- are certainly grounds for and the ability to create a well-sourced well-written neutral article on the topic
- userfy
- Mainspace isn't for a sandbox draft this rough.
- The POV issues can't be taken care of.
- This is an unfixable content fork.
- in the last three examples, (FDR, Putin, Blair) they're definitely POV forks.
- identical in purpose to Public image of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama.
- honey pot for any editor who does not like the current president to post their criticism.
- There is no way such an article could maintain NPOV
- may even become a launching board to push dubious sourced statements into other articles.
- For reference the above "keep" !vote is from the creator of the article.
- blatant subversion of talk page consensus on Talk:Barack Obama
- Stevertigo 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: To quote WP:BLP: "Summary [speedy] deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard." To quote WP:Attack page: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." I have speedily deleted this page, and since it's already been speedily deleted under this and another name 6 times now, I have salted it (protected against recreation) for 1 month. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. This is perhaps the one policy that the Wikimedia Foundation feels the most strongly about, since Wikipedia is subject to the same laws no defamation that everyone else in the U.S. is. As always, I could be wrong, and if so, the place to contest this is deletion review. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update As the article has been speedy deleted. Please see, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15 for the deletion review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Daniel (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Benson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Sources don't appear to indicate real notability. D.M.N. (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, thanks to those that have expanded the article during the AFD process. D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: co-creator (and listed as such here) of the Calvin cycle, which was important enough in biochemistry to get Calvin a Nobel Prize? Works for me. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've fixed / shortened the link refs and I am now 99% sure this passes WP:ACADEMIC, most obviously #1. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and
Tentative Delete. I'm not persuaded by the arguments of Ironholds and Jarry1250. If Benson's contributions to the Calvin cycle were important enough to garner a Nobel Prize, why didn't he get a Nobel Prize? Footnote 1 in the article certainly doesn't support WP:ACADEMIC. My opinion isn't written in stone, and I might change my vote if the article improves, but if the current article was the best that could be written, I would !vote Delete. THF (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Probably because Calvin did more work than any other individual, which would also explain why the most common name is the Calvin Cycle, rather than the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle. The Calvin-Benson-Bassham Cycle is used as the standard term here, here, here, here and here if it helps, so referring to it as the Calvin-Benson-Bassham Cycle seems to be considered valid within academia, which says to me that Benson did contribute to it quite a bit whatever the Nobel people say. Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because Calvin ran the lab in which Benson did the work. As I understand it, it's common in the Nobels for the principal investigators to get the award and the people who did the research under their supervision not to. The Russian 2007 paper considers it notable that three of the five Benson-Calvin-Bassham papers have Benson as first author. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably because Calvin did more work than any other individual, which would also explain why the most common name is the Calvin Cycle, rather than the Calvin-Benson-Bassham cycle. The Calvin-Benson-Bassham Cycle is used as the standard term here, here, here, here and here if it helps, so referring to it as the Calvin-Benson-Bassham Cycle seems to be considered valid within academia, which says to me that Benson did contribute to it quite a bit whatever the Nobel people say. Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. National Academy of Science member; clear pass of WP:PROF #3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)
- Keep per David Eppstein, but the article needs a lot of improvement. THF (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some good wikilinks for context looks OK now Thruxton (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages Fritzpoll (talk) 10:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cloudbuster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An article on a fringe "technology" that contains no reliable sources sufficient to estabish notability or allow for verification of any of its claims. How long should unsourced articles be allowed to persist? Not certain, but two and a half years seems quite long enough. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then redirect. Adequately covered in Orgone (notable), no need for this separate article. Verbal chat 18:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it should be a dab with a link to Orgone and Cloudbusting? Verbal chat 20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- perhaps redirect people might well put this in the search bar, [11] [12] [13] it's even formed the basis of a well known song by kate bush, Cloudbusting, but it need only be a redirect and all covered in the orgone article; depending whether other people think Cloudbuster's worth its own. Sticky Parkin 18:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since all cloudbusters seem to operate on principles related to orgone, a redirect seems to be most appropriate. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I am finding good sources on this topic: [14], [15], [16], [17], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=6622], [18], [19]. The list goes on! Cazort (talk) 21:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The artcle is in terrible shape, possibly as a result of being edited pretty roughly to deal with POV issues, possibly becuase it was awful to begin with, but the subject is notable and with effort the article could be saved. Artw (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and dab topic is notable and verifiable as shown by the sources above, but does not merit a standalone article, and can be efficiently merged into Orgone without overburdening that article. -Atmoz (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Orgone. Note both that merges can be done without AfD and that the relevant section on Wilhelm Reich is the best of the three treatments. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cloudbusting was only one aspect of Wilhelm Reich's work, and thanks to Kate Bush's song, may be the way people learn about it. The article is more than a stub at this point, and is in shape to be expanded further. I think it deserves an opportunity. Eauhomme (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Orgone and dab Article establishes no notability of its own.--Sloane (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —Sloane (talk) 16:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt i'm not opposed to a redirect, but this "technology" is already sufficiently covered in the orgone article. This article is unsourced entirely, so what on earth would be merged?Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Subject is notable. User:Cazort is looking to add sources so there is no need for deletion. Caden S (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is already more than adequately covered in Orgone, Wilhelm Reich, and Cloudbusting, what makes it notable enough to have its own article? For example, are cloudbusters ever discussed in WP:RS without reference to one of those three things; or even just Orgone? Verbal chat 21:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and decide which should be merged into which? Barbie Doll into Toys or The Whopper into Hamburger? Sorry, wrong queue. As there is an ongoing effort to improve the article about a historical device that already approaches notability, it would be prudent to allow it to continue. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If Barbie Doll was the only notable toy, or the whopper was the only way of manipulating hamburgers, then both of those redirects/mergers would make sense. Those analogies don't work. Verbal chat 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete then redirect. I don't see two articles for 'fondue' and 'fondue pot'. There is no context for a cloudbuster outside the discussion of orgone. Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the arguments laid forth in the previous AfD, sources and some clarifications regarding the claims should be included. As it stands and per the page history it isn't clear if it is meant to cause rainfall or prevent it. I wouldn't be against merging/redirecting into a 'Applications of' (with whatever disclaimers are felt necessary) section of Orgone though, provided that the material is allowed to incubate there. Unomi (talk) 14:29, 17 March 200 9 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I actually consulted this article last year when my co-worker was reading about Orgone Collectors. They're different things/technologies: Orgone (according to followers of Reich) is the force which underlays the entire universe, cloudbusting uses that force to control weather, Orgone collectors use that force for -- among other things -- psychological and physical health care of humans. Its also the source of the orgasm box gag in Woody Allen's Sleeper. While all this is completely unscientific, each has a distinct role in Reich's thought/science, and has a cultural importance far beyond their scientific value (which is nill). That much has been written about these -- independent of Reich -- popsongs have been written about this device/process, and there are innumerable people who think they are "developing" this "technology" and/or will sell you one, puts this far over any notability bar. The Orgone Collector box is more important to Reich, but it seems Cloudbusting has fascinated people since the 70s much more. If this were to be merged into Orgone (which would -- from Reich's point of view -- be like merging Weather control into Physics) you'd have to merge all the Reichian "technologies"/culture into Orgone. With the amount written on Wikipedia about Reich, that would be a article which we'd immediately have to split for size. T L Miles (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: per the nom. We don't delete stuff cause it's not verifiable as being "true". We delete it if it is unverifiable that independent third party sources think it either exists or is still worth discussing, and if it doesn't meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Otherwise we'd have to next delete all articles about religious beliefs which we can't verify as "true" (which is all of them). T L Miles (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:This subject is notable and with effort the article should be saved. -Ret.Prof (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you oppose a redirect? Verbal chat 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Criteria for nomination no longer applies: Article is now referenced, and plenty of other references are available. -- Shunpiker (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't the case, the references do not show notability outside of orgone, and as cloudbusters are already covered in depth in that article then this article should be redirected tere. Verbal chat 08:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. as WP:CSD#G7. Please open a new AfD for the other article (possibly referring to this AfD). – sgeureka t•c 22:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- UMAUD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Taking this out of the db-spam speedy deletion queue since it involves a school program. Obviously, schools can be as self-promotional as any company and some school projects should be deleted as spam; other school projects should be merged, and others have independent notability. I believe there's consensus for 5-day discussion instead of speedy deletion for education projects (with exceptions for obvious spamming), but I'd appreciate feedback if I'm wrong. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC) tweaked 17:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spammy, questionable notability. LetsdrinkTea 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Single academic one year masters program at a single university. These are never encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks guys. The tagger (MuffledThud) just brought UMAUD Environment and Natural Resources studies to my attention, which is more or less a copy, except the creator has done some work on the second one. Are there any objections to speedily deleting UMAUD and AfD'ing the second article? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Makes sense to me. MuffledThud (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and to me./ DGG (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was As nominator I'm withdrawning the request. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 01:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Best&USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The page is a copy of this page which was up like a month before the user created the page. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
*I am also nominating the following related pages because same as above: BEST&USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) BEST&USA was speedy deleted. ~Moon~月と暁~Sunrise~ 18:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Both to Best & USA LetsdrinkTea 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeong Da-Hooeon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested WP:PROD, South Korean footballer with no evidence of first team appearances in a fully professional league, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 16:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom LetsdrinkTea 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems to fail WP:ATHLETE as not having yet played in the league, as far as I can see. -- Alexf(talk) 14:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedied, non admin closure LetsdrinkTea 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Lockett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Wikipedia is not a sports statistics repository and college/university players don't meet WP:ATHLETE criteria. Mgm|(talk) 15:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tempted to Speedy this, But I gonna give the editor a chance and try to improve it. From how he removed the AFD tag, might be a WP:HOAX. Otherwise, WP:ATHLETE applies. --Numyht (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please see Chad May which is created by the same editor. --Numyht (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Gray Davis. Material is in history if there is any material to merge. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sharon Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Is the spouse of a governor notable? There is nothing here to suggest that Sharon Davis is, apart from her choice of husband. pablohablo. 15:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the page so that anyone who may be interested in learning more about her may have the chance. Her being First Lady of California is very notable, plus the fact that she won Miss Santee while in High School.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:BIO, simply being the governor's spouse does not confer notability, but information about Mrs. Davis may be included in her husband's article. In order to have a standalone article for Sharon Davis, Additional criteria must be met. (See Notability fallacies — Notability is inherited — however, "this does not apply to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady.") In the case of Sharon Davis, is there reliably sourced information about her activities as California's First Lady. If not, it would seem that her information should be merged with the governor's article. "Miss Santee" does not seem notable; Miss America would be notable.— ERcheck (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The same argument could be used for Martha Washington, but many assume good faith and decide that some articles are worth keeping.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My inclination is to support deletion, but perhaps more sources can be found and some more content can be added that would support the subject's notability. I may check back later in the AfD period to give a recommendation either way. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis. Based on the current article, she doesn't seem to be notable enough for her own article. TJ Spyke 17:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis; notability is not inherited, and a few lines in Gray's biography constitutes adequate coverage. - Biruitorul Talk 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect (1) Her early life section contains information that isn't in her husband's article. (2) Since her name is a likely search term, redirecting it to her husband is a good compromise between full keep or delete. (3) Merging little notable relatives to the article of a family member is common practice. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Looking at this from a world-wide perspective, isn't it far more likely that a reader typing in "Sharon Davis" would be looking for the extremely notable Sharron Davies, rather than for the obscure spouse of some provincial governor? If we want to best serve our readership then any redirect should go there, not to Gray Davis. For a horrified few moments I thought that it was Sharron Davies's article that was up for deletion here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gray Davis.Nrswanson (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elli davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete promotional article about a real estate agent, whose title is also incorrectly capitalised. Mindmatrix 14:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I came across this while stub-sorting, and I moved it to a properly capitalized title, as well as slapping a bunch of tags on it and removing some unencyclopedic material. I'd say delete it unless someone finds enough secondary source material from which to build a properly referenced article. -GTBacchus(talk) 14:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I'd have given it a db-bio. She's doing a job. A good job, but just a job. Absolutely nothing notable in terms of an encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Adelsio Carlos Abrillo Neno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete No source he exist. Matthew_hk tc 13:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable football player. Laurent (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 15:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is a member of a team in the Macedonian Prva Liga, the highest professional football league in Macedonia. [20]. The only question remains, is that a reliable source (seems to be), and has the subject actually played a game? (WP:ATHLETE)— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No result in google except wikipedia echo and macedonianfootball.com. Matthew_hk tc 09:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If he had played a first team game for them, he'd probably meet WP:ATHLETE as I believe the Macedonian First League is fully pro. However, this list seems to indicate that he hasn't played yet this season. Unless we can find some evidence that he has played (perhaps in a previous season), he won't be notable. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emir Šabani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- Delete A unsourced youth international footballer Matthew_hk tc 12:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does playing for a U19 national team count as notability? I forget the rules about soccer (sorry, rest of the world) players.74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Youth caps do NOT confer notability. GiantSnowman 15:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE so far. - Alexf(talk) 14:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 03:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Clayton Matthews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Insufficient notability — secretary-treasurer of an academic honor society. — ERcheck (talk) 12:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Does the fact that the organization named their highest award in his honor confer enough notability? I'm torn, as one would hope the honorees would know who this person was, but would anyone outside the organization know?74.69.39.11 (talk) 13:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I wrote on the article discussion page: "The notability of the Secretary-Treasurer position is immediately apparent from the frequent references to the position in the Constitution and Bylaws and Eligibility Code of the Tau Beta Pi Association, Inc., and the fact that it is one of two permanent, appointed positions in that organization. It is also notable that the organization's outstanding chapter award is named after him, and that the headquarters of the organization was moved in 1907 to accommodate his relocation, and that it remains in that location today." If you read the Constitution and Bylaws, it is immediately apparent that the Secretary-Treasurer is the de-facto chief executive of the organization. It is also worth noting that R. C. Matthews was the first person to hold the Secretary-Treasurer position, and since his retirement in 1947, there have only been two other people who have held that position: Robert H. Nagel, who held the position from 1947 to 1982; and James D. Froula, who has held the position since 1982 [21]. There is one other notability claim that I'd like to mention--I've seen claims that R. C. Matthews invented modern acrobatic cheerleading, and I am working on finding reliable secondary sources to either support or refute that claim. Eyliu (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Delete There is no guideline that some organization naming an award after someone automatically makes him notable. Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What part of the basic criteria for notability from WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," am I failing to meet? I am starting with two published secondary sources: The semi-centennial alumni record of the University of Illinois, pp. 167-168; and the 2009 Tau Beta Pi Information Book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyliu (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability only within the organization. The presdient of a major national association is notable, not lesser officers.DGG (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will repeat again, since no one seems to be reading the references that I've provided (and no one seems to be responding directly to any of my arguments, which doesn't make this much of a discussion :-/ ). A cursory reading of the Constitution and Bylaws and Eligibility Code of the Tau Beta Pi Association, Inc. will make it immediately apparent that the Secretary-Treasurer of this particular organization is arguably more notable than the President. Eyliu (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- this is possible, so explain to us why in one paragraph, that could be used in the article, with specific short quotes, intsead of just citing the whole thing. DGG (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails the requirement that notability be demonstrated through coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Most of the sources are from Tau Beta Phi themselves, who are not independent of the subject. Robofish (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly unnotable per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am clearly wasting my time making changes and arguments that are not being read or responded to. I have made a copy of the page in my user space in case I find time to fix this article later. Eyliu (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to sled dog. MBisanz talk 07:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sled-Dogging (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Originally prodded. I removed and redirected to sled-dog but it keeps returning. The article is OR, unsourced and an essay. There seems to be little relevance in the essay to actual dog sledding except for some made up example of killing the lead dog, which would just mean the rest would stop to eat the dead animal. The second section by it's own admission fails to explain what it is talking about. Delete. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK this is what I call patent nonsense. Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because it is entirely OR and simply nonsensical. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 18:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced essay or something. - Biruitorul Talk 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to sled dog per your original intentions, and get the page protected. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 21:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to sled dog as this is the proper meaning 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: how can you create a redirect if you're wanting to delete the page???? Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 04:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Igor Tasevski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete according to [22], he did not made his debut on this year Prva Liga. And according to playerhistory.com, no previous notable league he played. Matthew_hk tc 12:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Govvy (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 15:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alexf(talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Let me preface that due to the massive changes made during the course of this AfD, deleting it per speedy crit. G4 as some below recommended would be inappropriate.
Going through the references in the article as of this revision, we have a total of nine refs, five of which have no initial connection to the source and may be considered secondary. The Washington Post only establishes background info and does not mention the subject. The MyDD article references the Prospect article, and does not mention the subject. The Huffington Post is being used to verify that a writer has blogged at the Motley Moose, among other publications.
The remaining two references are a DailyKos article linking to a Motley Moose story, and the Prospect article; as demonstrated, these simply do not meet the non-trivial requirement as per the general notability guideline (aside: blogs should not be immediately thrown away as sources as some suggested, but due to the general nature of a lack of fact-checking, blogs are expected to meet the criteria of WP:SPS. Editors would be expected to prove the reliability of the author.) Furthermore, the article does not meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB--being written by notable people or interviewing notable people is not part of the criteria; to quote the essay to put it succinctly, it's not inherited from them.
On the AfD talk page, S Marshall brings up valid points that WP:PRESERVE, and WP:IMPERFECT could support the inclusion of this article, and also invokes WP:IAR. However I see no indication in the discussion below and on talk that there is consensus to exempt the article from all the other guidelines along these lines. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Motley Moose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Disputed repost-speedy. Previously deleted via AfD as failing to establish notability; subsequent deletion review withdrawn by the nominator[1], who is also the page creator of both instances. References used still consist of the site itself, trivial or incidental mentions, and all too often no mention. Fails to establish notability. 9Nak (talk) 11:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous AfD discussion
- Deletion review discussion
- A breakdown of the currently cited references
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —9Nak (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author's "Strong Keep" Essay
|
---|
Strong Keep until reviewed by Wikiproject Blogging This article was submitted for deletion- see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motley Moose. On 21-FEB-2009, the article was submitted for speedy deletion with no prior notice- there was no attempt to made to contact the article's authors, and no attempt to improve the article. The "Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page" was not posted. There was no PROD suggested. The article was merely sent straight to speedy deletion. This may have been an ideologically-driven submission; but at this point, it hardly matters. Whatever the purpose of the nominator, the "speedy delete" was eventually modified down to a regular AfD discussion upon review by other Wikipedia editors with a clearer head on 22-FEB. Again, no attempt was made to contact any of the article's authors. On 25-FEB-2009, the article's authors first became aware of the possible impending deletion of the article and immediately went to work both in improving the article, and working in a vain attempt to stave off deletion. Two days later a final decision was rendered by an admin thusly:
Blatant disregard of the AfD guidelines aside, the main arguments for the deletion of the article in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motley Moose discussion were:
All of these arguments (and more!) were addressed in the original Articles for Deletion discussion; sadly, almost none were addressed specifically. A summation of the arguments, and the responses to them, summarized (relatively) briefly:
Rather than allow this article to be worked on in it's previous incarnation, it was aimply deleted. It was my understanding that, regardless of the merits of that discussion, it needed to be deleted, worked on, and possibly reposted. Furthermore, this article is entirely within the scope of the Wikiproject Blogging; we are currently in the process of assessing some 140 other entries on Wikipedia on blogs that are currently unassessed, and another 50 or so that need various stages of work. This article will be submitted, just as any other, to that review process, and if it is found to be not-notable by the Wikiproject editors, it will be deleted. We are an impartial group. Please allow us to do our work. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 12:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Strong Keep For those skipping the above breakdown, strong keep. References are notable and within the standards of WP:Web and Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging. Ks64q2 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I voted delete in the last AfD thread; I see some major progress has been made on this article, and that it does indeed fall into the scope of the Wikipedia blogging project. I am convinced that this isn't simply a vanity blog or a promotional article; the number of notable contributors to the cite certainly vouches for that. Also, Ks64q2, last time I thought that you were the owner of the blog and it was about you; I did not pay enough attention, and that is inexcusable. Please accept my apologies. Thank you. 12.40.50.1 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification In order to try and head off this discussion going where the last one did; I think the references from DailyKos are valid, and I understand your argument behind the TalkingPointsMemo source; it's an interesting point, but I don't know how to apply it here. I understand why you referenced the articles that don't specifically talk about the website, in order to establish the website's editors are notable. I think there is plenty of precedence for that notability rubbing off on the website in question for the purposes of a Wikipedia article. I also agree that US Congressmen and embattled Zibabwean politicians generally don't just sit down for anyone, and your arguments behind why you link to the website from the article. I guess the biggest thing would be those two print articles; there's no online evidence they exist, which shouldn't preclude you from using them as a resource, but it seems to be an issue here. Do you think you could scan them, or perhaps fax them to an administrator? I hate to ask you to do that, since I think it would be unprecedented for a Wikipedia entry to have to do that. I personally am somewhat bemused both sides are reacting this strongly. I thought before you were the website's owner or article's creator, but seeing the logs from last time I note neither circumstance is correct. You and 9Nak seem to have some sort of a person grudge going, and it doesn't reflect well on either of you. Still, I would say a definite keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.40.50.1 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thank you for taking the time to look through my comments. 9Nak and I are just a little tense, but we had a chat and understand we're both only interested in what's best for Wikipedia, and kind-of had to agree to disagree, though we're still working things out, hence our strong reactions. I apologize for how it makes us appear, we really don't intend any ill-will toward each other or the process. No, I'm neither the website creator nor the article's original creator; I suppose I am very verbal in my support because it was the first article I tried to rescue from deletion, and did not feel like I was given a "fair shake" to make things better the last go-round. As for scanning/faxing the articles, well, I understand where you're coming from- it's a little unnerving. In the scope of my work at Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging, I've seen plenty of articles on blogs kept with incredibly less than this one, and I can't imagine anyone having to fax an unpaid Wikipedia administrator proof an article exists, especially considering the "Assume Good Faith" policy. But if there's precedent to it, then I will consider taking the hard copies down to the local Office Depot and fax it, as long as it's not international- crap, the local faxes cost a buck a sheet. But it makes me really wary, I will admit. Seems to be broaching the scope of what a community repository of knowledge is supposed to be about, and dampens the spirit and cooperative environment of Wikipedia. Just my $0.02. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Thanks, man, I appreciate it. Join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging if you're interested in helping on other articles; there are about two hundred unassessed Blogging articles with problems far more serious than this one, we could use a hand sorting them all out. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete advert for non-notable, unverifiable subject, per previous AfD (which would have survived review were it not for author's withdrawal just prior to a negative result) and nom's helpful reference analysis. -- samj inout 16:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response having perused the [WP:NOTADVERTISING] reference I really fail to see how this article about a democratic blog could be construed as advertising in any shape or form. Perhaps this is related to some misunderstanding displayed in your comment below, but no such advertising links exist in the salient entry, or its links. --Peterjukes (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Also, sir, this seems a bit disingenuous... it was explained to me the deletion review never serves as a further judgment on the merit of an article being deleted or not, merely to enact the consensus from the original AfD, which was delete in that case; though the consensus was fatally flawed by misjudgments, some of which were made once again in the nomination of this article for deletion. Thus, the administrator noted it would be more prudent to withdraw the nomination, fix the requisite errors, and resubmit it at a later date. You and 9Nak both seem to be using this, however, as a cudgel against the article, that the review was withdrawn- suggesting bad faith on the part of the article's creator. If this is the case, sir, it is certainly unacceptable and has no place in this discussion; it will only produce another fatally-flawed consensus. Considering your unprovoked personal attack on me in the next comment down, I'm certain you can understand my concern. However, I must assume that you were unaware of these circumstances when you wrote your above statement; no harm, no foul. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ks64q2 also recently created family centered care which looks like an advert for this org and has similar issues (unreliable and self-published sources that fail verification). User would be well advised to consider the intent of the relevant policies rather than wikilawyering (as above). -- samj inout 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Sir, I know it's within Wikipedian policy to assume good faith, however, I feel your comments here stretch that policy significantly. I say this because you make it obvious by your actions that you've neither perused the AfD article's namesake, the arguments listed above addressing the concerns listed for AfD, and the Family centered care article you cite in suggesting my purpose on Wikipedia is to simply create self-advertising entries. First of all, on the FMC page, you actually chose the one link included specifically because their name popped up first in Google for "family centered care"; it's not referenced anywhere else in the article, and if you'd actually visited that website, you see that argument has no merit. Furthermore, since "family centered care" is an intangible method of providing health care, I don't see how it's possible to advertise it... it would be like creating an article on Pediatrics and then finding a Peds clinic somewhere and saying it was an advert for them. Yet you accuse me of "wikilawyering"? Sir, I strongly decry this behavior; it certainly has no place in this setting. If you are not willing to discuss the matter at hand, I suggest you bring that to my talk page, rather than espouse these unfounded accusations in a public forum. Ks64q2 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random section break
edit- Strong Keep I think the Article fits within the guidlines of Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging. The nominator's notations on the references were properly addressed by article's author.68.201.84.95 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.84.95 (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC) — 68.201.84.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- delete- I cant see where this blog has been given any notability in real, mainstream WP:RS [23] as opposed to internets sites. Sticky Parkin 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiproject blogging- they can think what they like, with all respect, this doesn't meet the basic notability guidelines for this encyclopedia as a whole. Could I make a wikiproject and get my mates there to try and enforce our own standards by voting keep in an AfD please, and have that define the content of what seeks to be an encyclopedia about notable subjects.:) Sticky Parkin 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Heh, I see what you mean by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Blogging standards, but that project has been around for some years now, and is officially sanctioned, not just an attempt to create and meatpuppet articles into existence. Heh. Also, I'd ask why sites like DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo, even though they are internet-based, don't count as notable, especially considering that there are more than a few major print publications wrapping up their printing presses and heading online solely. Wouldn't you say? Otherwise, thanks for the input, man! I appreciate it! Ks64q2 (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo are notable, which is why they have articles on Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you completely; the suggestion, however, seems to be that they are not notable since they are web-based, thus the references from those sites are not acceptable for this article. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiproject blogging- they can think what they like, with all respect, this doesn't meet the basic notability guidelines for this encyclopedia as a whole. Could I make a wikiproject and get my mates there to try and enforce our own standards by voting keep in an AfD please, and have that define the content of what seeks to be an encyclopedia about notable subjects.:) Sticky Parkin 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Could you elaborate your specific problems, so I can address them? Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the talk page of this AfD discussion, where 9Nak has told you why the current references in the article are not reliable sources/do not even mention the blog. I've done several searches for sources but can find nothing to save this article. Cunard (talk) 19:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Yes, 9Nak and I seem to have some personal acrimony here and we are considering both withdrawing from this discussion rather than let that interfere with the judgment of the article. For my own personal reference, however, to better educate myself and for the article's references, could you tell me something in particular you disagree with? 9Nak has suggested, for instance, DailyKos isn't a notable reference, which you seem to have disputed yourself above. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the third time: kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. I have done neither of those things. 9Nak (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My sincere apologies; perhaps you could suggest why reference #7, for instance, is incidental, if not for the source. It specifically credits the article's namesake several times, and was a featured article on the site. Ks64q2 (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's simple, this article isn't the sole focus of any third party reliable sources as required per WP:N. There's lots of puffery going on here but nothing that shows how the blog itself has been the object of discussion. I highly suspect a conflict of interest with the ardent creator and defender. ThemFromSpace 20:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response You err, sir. This article is the sole focus of several unquestionable third-party sources, and the article's defender was not the article's creator (please note the addendum at the beginning of this article), merely a member of Wikiproject Blogging who happened across it in it's former form and worked very hard to improve it to save it from deletion; nothing more, nothing less. Not sure how ardent defense automatically equals conflict of interest, however. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of people from that wikiproject have contributed to this AfD, I suspect. I'd be interested as to the result/votes when hopefully a more representative sample of the wider community contribute. As to sources, there's been no real world press, it's not even once mentioned in any articles hosted on the equivalent of the website of the Birmingham Mail, let alone the New York Times.:) Sticky Parkin 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't yet see sufficient reliable sources for me to recommend a keep, but I'll hang fire on my !vote for the moment to see if any appear.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Apologies if there's a lack of acronyms or wikilayering in my response, but I'm coming at notability from a slightly more populistic viewpoint. As the feature writer of the cited Prospect piece on the importance of community blogging during the 2008 Elections I think some of the attitudes to 'print sources' and notability in this thread to be short sighted.
Political blogs like MYDD and Kos are redefining political discourse, activism and advocacy. The Prospect article was cross cited in several newspapers in the UK, as well as wikipedia's own entry on MYDD
I came across Motley Moose during the writing of that piece, and it represents the next phase of emergent community run blogs with no top down control or proprietorial ownership. I have no financial interest in the site (as apparently no one does) it is clearly one of the exciting new political blogs to have emerged in the wake of Obama's election. Personally, I rarely write on MYDD or DailyKos now as a result.
If the vote goes for delete I hope the current entry is stored somewhere, because given the current trends you'll certainly be reinstating it before long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC) — Peterjukes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Are any of the links to major newspapers working? I clicked on the ones to BBC News and the Huffington Post, and there was no mention of this at all there. Dream Focus 01:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Response the links to BBC and Huffington Post provide examples of three notable contributors, Denise Oliver Velez, Dawn Teo and Michelle Marshall —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to erase my comment, but since you responded to it, I'll let it be. If all the contributors are such notable writers, then working together on something, makes that notable. I say *Keep. Has something like this happened before? If not, that event in itself is notable. Dream Focus 01:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. Having followed the spread of political activism on the internet, this spontaneous gathering together of notable and active bloggers in a genuine, non-proprietorial political site is exception as far as I know, and certainly notable in the circumstances of the Obama campaign and the influence of on-line advocacy and fundraising. This historical fact alone is more important than any individual contributor, or indeed cross references in the print media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First, notability is not inherited. Second, the contributors might be notable, but none have articles on Wikipedia. Third, since the news articles do not even mention this blog, it cannot be verified that these writers have contributed to this blog . Cunard (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you're mistaken there- Peter Jukes, Joe Trippi for contributors, and Roy Bennett and Tom Perriello for two interviewees. Also, the Prospect Magazine article certainly mentions the blog, as do the offline sources. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Prospect Magazine article only contains a passing mention of the Motley Moose — one sentence. That one sentence doesn't even mention the notable contributors/notable interviewees. Cunard (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you concede several contributors are in wikipedia. As for this new point, I must point out that, as the author of the Prospect piece, that it was penned a month before publication in September, there could be no mention of the other contributors because the site was only then being talked about. What was notable about it then was the way it arose in response to the primary wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjukes (talk • contribs) 02:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just one further point. You call the Motley Moose reference in the Prospect Magazine article a 'passing reference' but that term is very misleading. The reference to Motley Moose occupies the whole last paragraph, and is the culmination and conclusion of the article. --Peterjukes (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Echoing the preceding comment, I would like to note that the context of the article means quite a bit, and that simply judging a source based on the number of times one is mentioned is a pretty illogical way to rate a source, especially when very obviously ignoring the content. Correct me if I'm wrong. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not ignore the content when I rated the source. In the article, the only context related to this topic is some background information about a group of people who "have had enough" of the "Republican trolls"; then the author of the magazine article, presumably Peterjukes (talk · contribs), writes "They’re forming a new progressive blog called Motley Moose to provide a troll-free and properly moderated site in which to roam—and they want me to join them!" That's not a neutral source. Neither of you has provided any reliable sources to prove this blog's notability per WP:WEB. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a neutral source, however, as the article predated the author's involvement in the site. Certainly, if it had been written now, you could argue quite successfully it's not a neutral source; however, the article helps to establish why the article's namesake is notable through it's purpose, which is very unique. Thus, the entire article needs to be taken into account, not just the last paragraph. It's describing the conditions that led to the creation of this one-of-a-kind political blog. Furthermore, you suggest no reliable sources were available per WP:WEB, except that you mentioned earlier yourself that "DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo are notable, which is why they have articles on Wikipedia.". Furthermore, The Cavalier Daily is also a notable source, and as we've established now, so is Prospect Magazine. Ks64q2 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The magazine article is not a neutral source because the author was writing about a blogging website that he was planning to join. Furthermore, the magazine article is about an assortment of political topics; the article was not exclusively about The Motley Moose. In fact, The Motley Moose seemed to be added in as an afterthought.
The Cavalier Daily is not a reliable source because it is a student-run newspaper. Student-run newspapers have not received the fact-checking that reliable sources, such as The Guardian, The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press, etc. have received. It has not received editorial I did mention that the DailyKos and TalkingPointsMemo are notable, but I did not say that they produced reliable sources. According to WP:SPS, blogs are usually not reliable sources. Per 9Nak (talk · contribs) above, please don't put words into my mouth. Cunard (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you're incorrect; the article was not written about a site the author intended the join; as it has been explained above, the article's namesake was discovered in the course of research, not as an afterthought, and is the culmination of the significant events noted in said article. As to suggesting The Cavalier Daily is not reliable because it hasn't received the "fact checking" that the other publications you mention have, you then trail off on "It has not received editorial..."- not sure where you were going there. However, the original AfD never questioned the reliability of this source, it was largely established to be bona fide. As to your comments, sir, I simply point out your own words; I don't supplement them with my own. However, you seem to be retreating back into suggesting the article be judged strictly on the letter of the policy you quote, rather than the spirit- perhaps indicate precisely why those references are un-notable, in detail- and you certainly have seemed to ignore the counterpoints made in the "strong keep" essay above, as you are continuing to make judgments based off of an inaccurate representation of the events that have transpired. This is a very complex issue, however, so they are easy to miss; I certainly don't begrudge you that in any way. You'll have to excuse my somewhat biting nature at times; it seems like to me that you've changed your story several times in response to my counterpoints, rather than address them directly (such as when you incorrectly suggested no Wikipedia articles existed on any of the aforementioned topics, then ignored the correct to that statement. However, I understand you're simply working from the "Assume Good Faith" and want to improve the Wikipedian community, nothing more and nothing less. Since you seem very motivated, I would ask for your help in ; there are approximately 200 articles that need work and review on the subject of blogs, and we need people with your motivation to assist our team. Shall I include you as a member on the project page? Ks64q2 (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The magazine article is not a neutral source because the author was writing about a blogging website that he was planning to join. Furthermore, the magazine article is about an assortment of political topics; the article was not exclusively about The Motley Moose. In fact, The Motley Moose seemed to be added in as an afterthought.
- I'm not interested in blogs, so I have no interest in joining WikiProject Blogs. I am withdrawing from this conversation because I (and several other editors) have clearly explained why the sources do not suffice. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, well, I'm very sorry to hear that! I thought since you were so vigorously participating here, you would certainly be interested in contributing further to a worthy WikiProject about blogging. I am sad to see you depart, as you left several of my concerns unaddressed, your assertion to the contrary nonwithstanding. Have a wonderful evening, or what's left of it, and thank you for your input! Ks64q2 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insignificant coverage to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Any specific complaints you can discern- which references, in particular, contribute to deny proper coverage of notability? Ks64q2 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Contribute to deny proper coverage of notability"? Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, just was wondering which references you had a specific problem with that would constitute "insignificant" coverage, rather than appropriate coverage. Sorry, it was worded a little strangely. Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Any specific complaints you can discern- which references, in particular, contribute to deny proper coverage of notability? Ks64q2 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Random section break
edit- Delete for lack of sources meeting the notability criteria for web content. Ks64q2, this is absolutely not the first time I've pointed you towards those and asked you to clarify how this article meets them, and so far you've ignored me. I'm extremely disappointed that you've chosen to recreate this article without any discernable changes as far as sourcing is concerned. onebravemonkey 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And whilst we're at it; Peterjukes, this is exactly the sort of activity I warned you against, given your obvious conflict of interest with this article. onebravemonkey 09:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response thanks for your comments Onebravemonkey. I read the guidelines, and took very much to heart what you said about not editing articles that involved me, even in the spirit of correction. But here, in this AfD discussion, I'm not editing the article. Most my comments are about misrepresentations of the Prospect Article. To whit:
- 1. I have no financial interest in the site, and discovered it in the process of writing the article. The notability of the site comes from precisely its origin out of the primary wars, and what I described as the 'first big political battle of the blogosphere'. To correct a misrepresentation of my print article hardly strikes me as a conflict of interest.
- 2. I corrected the impression that the reference to Motley Moose was 'in passing'. It wasn't, it was mentioned in conclusion.
- 3. Now I stand accused of having written the Prospect piece out of self interest because I was planning to join the site. This is frankly ludicrous, and shows no understanding of the rigours of writing for Britain's top philosophical and political monthly. With its large editorial staff and reputation to maintain, there is no way that Prospect would publish a 4,000 word piece like this because an author wanted to puff a website he might like to join in the future. The article was commission and published because of its notability, a notability which has been confirmed since by the number of conferences I have been invited to talk on the matter, and the number of political organisations hoping to emulate the mainly American phenomenon of political blogging in the UK. Short of demanding some kind of apology from the author of those damaging remarks, my only alternative is to correct the false impressions where they take root. Surely wikipedia understands the rights of the accused and the possibility of offering a counterstatement.
- Though I understand better the protective rules about editing wikipedia articles in which one has an interest, correcting false impressions of other sources seems to me to be a different issue. I commented in good faith on a separate journalistic piece I had written, and if this is somehow a 'conflict of interest' would like guidance how one should respond in cases like this. As you will see I have had no input into the piece itself, following your strict cautions.--Peterjukes (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Ahh, sir, yes. Nice to see you here again. On my end, I'm extremely disappointed you seem to have ignored any of the arguments brought forward and seem suggest a lack of good faith on both my part, and the part of "Peterjukes". In the last AfD, I told you the consensus was flawed, and I see that you still seem to be operating under those flawed principles. If you have any detailed responses to the counterpoints made above, that more than address the comments you brought up specifically, please, by all means, share them. Otherwise, I would suggest you orient yourself with them before we proceed. However, I am glad you've added your voice to the mix here; this sort of community referendum is what Wikipedia is all about. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. You assume that I haven't read and understood your arguments... I read them in the first AFD, and in the DRV and again above, but none seem to address the concerns that I have raised. You must realise that editors here have attempted to assist in supporting your effort (as far as sourcing is concerned) and have failed... please don't then continue to ignore our attempts to do this on the assumption that we are "flawed", "dishonest" and "disingenuous", and certainly don't then accuse me of not assuming good faith. It would do you very well to listen to what myself and other editors are saying here, not as criticism but as pointers to how you can improve the article. If you believe that this "community referendum" is what WP is about, then why have you so-far ignored the advice presented to you in two seperate forums, but then carried on regardless? As you can probably tell, I'm fast approaching the end of my good humour over this and am frankly sick-and-tired of repeating myself, but I'll have one last go regardless and ask you to please read the following (copied from when I originally wrote to you following the first AFD) as it pretty much sums up what you need to convince me of before I would consider changing my vote?
- As far as the article is concerned, I have tried to find detailed sources that refer to the article in the manner required by the notability guidelines for web content, but cannot find those that meet that criteria. In future discussions I would strongly recommend that you think about how best to meet these. Essentially they are as follows:
- 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (This is probably the most important one of the three.)
- 2. The website has won a well-known, independent award from a respected source.
- 3. The content is distributed by a well-respected, independent third-party publisher.
- These are by no means the only criteria to meet, but in my opinion they are the most relevant to the website. I will keep trying to find sources, but I have to concur with my fellow editors that it seems as though deletion is the best option for the moment. (This obviously doesn't mean that the article can't be recreated once better sources are found, but i must warn you that simple recreation is liable for speedy deletion under criteria G4: Recreation of deleted material.
- Thanks, and good luck, onebravemonkey 16:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Alright, sir, let's tackle this in detail, shall we? We'll take the first point you make, since the other two are largely subjective and the criteria for judging so would largely be up to the whims of each individual judging.
- "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." DailyKos, Prospect Magazine, The Cavalier Daily, would, at the very least, meet all of those criteria. CVille Weekly, while certainly a published source, perhaps less so. The arguments behind the supposed non-independence of the source from Prospect Magazine are incorrect. In fact, it was largely thought that rather than simply being a member of the Wikiproject Blogging team, I was actually the author of that article, and/or the owner of the site referenced by the article! In fact, the nominator of this AfD didn't even bother to correct those mistakes, even after repeated attempts to explain that in the first AfD. Furthermore, the author was independent of the source at the time the article was written. Period. The timeline supports that entirely, this is not a fact subject to review. Now, you say you've read the counterpoints I've presented above about the notability of the site, but you seem to be sticking to this one and only argument- sources alone. That is why I suggest this strikes of disingenuity, sir, because you give lip service to the other arguments I make while returning to solely judging this article on that alone. If you think my other points are invalid, fine, that's certainly your right- but then debunk them in detail, rather than to airly dismiss them offhand, and explain why what I judge as being important is less meaningful than your interpretation. Far from being disgruntled, however, I am impressed at the depth and amount of time you and the others are willing to spend on this one article trying to help improve it and work for Wikipedia. I am actually quite flattered, you are all obviously passionate people, and to take this much time out of your day to be a part of this discussion is very humbling. I await your response, sir. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I'm sticking to this one and only argument because notability is a key point for inclusion on WP and, as yet, it has not been proven. The two sources that I can check (DailyKos and Prospect Magazine) do not meet the above criteria, as they are trivial mentions of the site. In the first the mention is a brief quotation that is not expanded upon, and the second is a re-print of an article written by the site's creator that only briefly mentions the blog at the end. I would say that's passable for the creator's WP article, but not for this blog. I can see what you've done with sourcing details of the blog's contributors, but only one briefly mentions the blog. The main issue I have with the sources is that none of them are specifically about the blog, rather just off-hand mentions, if that. But I'm afraid that pales by the fact that there doesn't seem to be any discernable difference since the last time this came to AFD and DRV... that isn't good at all. Instead of arguing whether source X proves notability, find one that actually does without a shadow of a doubt!
- Your original essay brings up issues regarding whether the blog meets certain traffic criteria, Google Tests and various alleged bad-faith opinions from other editors, not to mention another allegation that the AFD was carried out improperly. None of these points actually deal with the article itself and whether it is sourced. You could be right in your assertion that this site is important, frankly I don't see enough evidence to back that up and that's why I return to the notability guidelines as they are the way to prove it. I'm solely interested with whether the article meets the relevant policies and guidelines...any discussions about any other editor's actions, whether good or bad faith, are simply by-the-by. onebravemonkey 17:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Response: I had to look twice before I realised that this remark was referring to my Prospect piece: "the second is a re-print of an article written by the site's creator that only briefly mentions the blog at the end."
- Onebravemonkey, perhaps this is the source of the problem here. Are you somehow under the impression that I'm the creator of Motley Moose? Is it not clear by the timeline of my article, and the details about the site itself, that there is no one creator, and I wrote about the Moose weeks before it was launched to the public? If so, let me make this clear here. Below I point out that the idea that Prospect would publish a 4000 word piece of puffery to let me somehow advertise my own site is not only an editorial impossibility, it's a damaging and baseless accusation which explains why this discussion is so heated, and why a generally well sourced and solid article is receiving such flak.
- If you will all accept the editorial realities I will now recuse myself. But I need to reiterate this, to clarify some glaring misconceptions
- 1. The Prospect piece was an independent feature about political blogging in the US during the primary wars, and the fall out of that. The story itself was very notable, and Motley Moose a notable outcome of the conflict.
- 2. I was commissioned to write the piece by Prospect before any such site existed. The site was in development by the time I finished the article, hence the timeline of mentioning it at the end.
- 3. I only started blogging on that site (I still do on MYDD and Dkos) when the piece was published. Had I known that writing comments on a site that gets several thousand page hits a day and has hundreds of contributors would retrospectively cast doubts on the independence of my Prospect piece, I would not have done it.
- 4. I am emphatically not the owner or creator of Motley Moose, just one of over two hundred commentators since September 2008, and one of many thousand readers. --Peterjukes (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Well, Peterjukes certainly hit on some of the issues I was trying to clarify. We are this far into this discussion for a second time, and yet you (and everyone else!) from the first AfD refuse to correct yourselves on the source of this article, the Prospect Magazine piece, the article's namesake, and the motivations behind this. Perhaps you can understand why there is a certain amount of frustration and the perception that you are not approaching this argument with good will assumed; upon repeated correction, nobody has yet admitted their view on this issue was flawed. This was one of the major reasons the first AfD was fatally flawed, and it was corrected even there- but that didn't stop the nominator of this AfD from incorrectly stating it again in this discussion. Furthermore, your criteria for judging the DailyKos article is, frankly, completely erroneous. Take a look at the relative importance of that article that DailyKos uses to judge it, and you'll see it was one of the highest-hitting pieces of the entire election season. Considering the traffic and reach of DailyKos is eons above most print publications- during the time the article was published, DailyKos was in the top 3,000 of all websites worldwide, garnering millions of hits per day. Furthermore, the editors of DailyKos went out of their way to scoop this reference from the AfD article's namesake- and those same editors went out of their way to discuss The Motley Moose. That doesn't even take into account the sites like TalkingPointsMemo that scooped the story without even bothering to cite The Motley Moose in detail. In fact, now that I search through the DailyKos site, editors from there still often use The Motley Moose as a source for news aggregation stories and to comment on current events, except that none have resulted in the amount of attention as the article cited. Since I don't see any way you can realistically argue that either, A) the DailyKos is a non-reliable, non-notable source, or B), the way the article was referenced was not-notable or reliable. You'll have to explain your thoughts further. Now, as for the other arguments, well, I understand why you are sticking with the judging criteria that you are. I cannot hold that against you. I would suggest, however, that the counterpoints I brought up on the arguments for further importance and notability are of no less importance in judging the article's worth than yours. Since I'm taking the time to respond to your points, I would appreciate you at least trying to address the other points I bring up, at least one or two in detail. It would help balance the argument and show, no matter the result here, that you are at least taking them into advisement, and I would certainly appreciate it. Also, considering the time you have poured into this discussion, I'd like you to join us at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Blogging; we have 200-some articles on blogs currently unassessed and sitting neglected, and we can sure use your expertise there. In fact, I have two dozen noted aside here that need another editor going through to take a look at them; can I forward them to your talk page? Thanks! Ks64q2 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely brief response: Thanks for the tag team. Peter: (I'll respond here rather than my talk page, as if I have to have this conversation over and over, I'd rather it be in one place) you are "one of the founding fathers" of Motley Moose; that is good enough to point at a conflict of interest. Ks64q2: I'm obviously not arguing that the DailyKos is non-reliable or non-notable nor that the reference is unreliable, rather that a single-line quote does not equate to discussing the site; it is a trivial mention.
- Cheers, onebravemonkey 08:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC
- And I'll respond really quickly here- my apologies to other editors, I don't want to spam the AfD discussion, but as brave noted, it's best to do this in one place; if you wanted to argue he has a COI now, that's not a problem, as he explained to both you and I previous to that; and secondly, only one of those DailyKos links has a one-line mention, the other has a multi-line mention, and while both were on the front page there, as I explained to you, at the time the second was posted they were getting tens of millions of hits a day, as it was in the midst of the 2008 Presidential election. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, sir, and I can respect it no matter what way this decision turns out, but please be factual about it. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Final brief response Onebravemonkey. It's a huge difference 'an article from the site's creator' to one of the 25 bloggers who agreed to start writing on the Moose after the acrimony of the Primary wars. This much smaller COI is there, hence the reason I have refrained from any intervention in the article itself.
- But this COI is not retrospective. It doesn't invalidate the impartiality of a major feature I wrote for Britain's major philosophical monthly BEFORE I started blogging there. The editorial board felt no conflict of interest in my mention of joining Motley Moose at the end of the article. I reject the suggestion this was puffery, and have defended my journalism where it has been attacked.
- I've learned from this important principles, and will now no longer even make factual corrections to articles I have any connection too because of the danger of COI. But I still stand by my right to intervene in this discussion when my writing and involvement has been misrepresented. While I'm happy to admit fault, I wish you and others from the previous AfD would admit your errors too, rather than just repeating damaging assertions. --Peterjukes (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response And you, sir, were presented with the fact that your analysis in that regard was fatally flawed. If you want to contest that, by all means, feel free, but please acknowledge that mistake so that we don't have another flawed consensus in this AfD. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without equivocation. I just spent more than a few minutes reading the author's comments, and the comments of both delete and keep opinions. I am convinced that notability had been met and the article deserves as much chance to grow as many other, far less worthy subjects that grace these electronic pages. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only non-trivial treatment I've seen on the subject is this WP:SPS letter-to-the-editor style "My Story" opinion piece. It's possible there's others buried in the reference noise but there's an element of WP:OCE in your argument. -- samj inout 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You err, sir; several other references were considered non-trivial, even in the first AfD. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll repeat the closure of the first AfD: "No actual reliable independent coverage of the blog has been shown". This closure had been unanimously endorsed at the Deletion Review before you withdrew it. You may think that some of the references were not trivial, or that the first AfD was flawed (as you claim above), but it is quite clear that the first AfD and DRV were not agreeing with you. I believe it would be best if you concentrated on the new sources you added, instead of using this as a way to avoid a DRV which was clearly going against yoru wishes. Fram (talk) 15:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I'll repeat to you, sir, it was explained to me in no uncertain terms the deletion review merely served as a reaffirmation of the AfD, and that no matter how flawed the AfD was, nor how many counterpoints I had to bring to the table, that was it's only purpose. You can review those logs if you'd like confirmation of that. It is somewhat disheartening that you, as well as others, are now using the fact I withdrew the DRV as a cudgel against this project, and strikes me as being completely disingenuous. In fact, none of the people that participated in the last AfD have even cared to correct their blatant misinterpretation of the events involved the article's creation, creator, and various effect of supposed conflict of interest. I understand you are an administrator and are only working for what you believe represents Wikipedia's best interests, but this strikes me as intellectual dishonest of the worst kind. If you have specific responses to the counterpoints I have made, I invite you to share them, sir; your status is unparalleled in this discussion so far, and I think it would bring great weight to them. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see, the DRV: "Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. Support userfying the content if the nominator wishes to use this on another site. " So the closure followed consensus, and userfication is suggested to reuse the article on another site!. Second endorse: "I think that the correct decision was made in closing the AFD." Ignoring the uncivil IP, the next one states "I'm satisfied that the closing admin did what they were supposed to do: implement the consensus." Fourth one: "Simply put, the closing admin closed the discussion based on the consensus, in other words, the only way it could possibly have been done." I see noone stating that the AfD was flawed. Your withdrawal of the DRV did not change the fact that it would have been closed as "endorse deletion". Avoiding this by withdrawing the DRV and reposting the article in a nearly similar state is not very good: letting the speedy G4 be removed by an IP who has a clear COI (judging from his other edits) is not very impartial either. And I did not close the AfD based on arguments relating to the ceration, COI, or whatever else you care to add to the discussion; I based it solely on the arguments relating to the sources used in the article. As far as I can tell, all the arguments made to dismiss the sources given are still valid, in that they are either not independent, not reliable, or not about the blog but about some contributors to the blog. Fram (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fram, *I* stated the AfD was flawed; and your quotes prove my point in detail. And again, you are assuming bad faith on my part, which is less than helpful to our discussion here. It was explained to me that the only result of that DRV was to enact the community consensus, and that, again, no matter the arguments I brought forward, even if they fixed everything that was addressed and President Obama himself had mentioned the article's namesake, deletion was the only result possible. I am working within the frames of Wikipedian policy as I understood it. Now, as to your point on the sources, it still ignores the counterpoints I made in the essay above, and about the points you bring up in particular. Since I know that Wikipedia policies are largely vagarities of individual interpretation, and are not meant to be taken with a strict, lawyer-esque look at them for every single discussion like this, you can understand my frustration, hopefully. Thank you for your contribution to this dialogue. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see, the DRV: "Endorse deletion per the consensus at the AFD. Support userfying the content if the nominator wishes to use this on another site. " So the closure followed consensus, and userfication is suggested to reuse the article on another site!. Second endorse: "I think that the correct decision was made in closing the AFD." Ignoring the uncivil IP, the next one states "I'm satisfied that the closing admin did what they were supposed to do: implement the consensus." Fourth one: "Simply put, the closing admin closed the discussion based on the consensus, in other words, the only way it could possibly have been done." I see noone stating that the AfD was flawed. Your withdrawal of the DRV did not change the fact that it would have been closed as "endorse deletion". Avoiding this by withdrawing the DRV and reposting the article in a nearly similar state is not very good: letting the speedy G4 be removed by an IP who has a clear COI (judging from his other edits) is not very impartial either. And I did not close the AfD based on arguments relating to the ceration, COI, or whatever else you care to add to the discussion; I based it solely on the arguments relating to the sources used in the article. As far as I can tell, all the arguments made to dismiss the sources given are still valid, in that they are either not independent, not reliable, or not about the blog but about some contributors to the blog. Fram (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Holy cow! I am new at this and boy is this discussion heated! Readign through the comments and looking at the website I would say though that the piece would be okay to keep. Seems like a lot of egos at work here hehe. But unlike the iranian bloggers or the classical music blog or deceiver, this site I think would be fine on our project. With that list of other things we are supposed to work on I think that this one is in much better shape!!! And a good part of the blog project. Keep up the good work! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahoodaddy! (talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google reveals few results; I see no Google News hits. Google acts generally as a good way of seeing if notable third-party sources have covered Motley Moose, and I can't see any such links. WikiProject assessment ultimately isn't an alternative to the deletion process. I congratulate my fellow WikiProject Blogs member for trying to defend such blogs, but I think in this instance, the blog isn't sufficiently notable to warrant an encyclopedia article. Computerjoe's talk 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing the sources, I see several major publications have mentioned the blog but in my opinion these mentions aren't in-depth enough to be considered anything more than trivial. Computerjoe's talk 19:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have done the same search but excluding 'The' (the website's name is actually "Motley Moose", and came up with 20,400 hits, about half of which (nested under different domain names) came from other sites. The author of this article should change the name to "Motley Moose" and exclude the definite article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.49.192 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good, we will look at eliminating the definite article and resorting simply to "Motley Moose" to address your concern, and register your vote as
Keep! Thank you, Joe! Ks64q2 (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ks64q2, I've struck the vote above as it is not yours to change and there is no evidence to suggest that the IP above is Computerjoe. If he wanted to change his !vote, he would, so don't put words in his mouth. onebravemonkey 08:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically not a vote and that IP isn't mine. Computerjoe's talk 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very good, we will look at eliminating the definite article and resorting simply to "Motley Moose" to address your concern, and register your vote as
- Have done the same search but excluding 'The' (the website's name is actually "Motley Moose", and came up with 20,400 hits, about half of which (nested under different domain names) came from other sites. The author of this article should change the name to "Motley Moose" and exclude the definite article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.49.192 (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Review of the arguments and keep recommendation
|
---|
|
- Delete Going through the references, all I see are blog posts and links to articles that don't even mention the site. There's one trivial mention in there. But WP:NOTE and WP:WEB require significant or non-trivial coverage for inclusion. Article clearly fails notability guidelines. --Sloane (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Sir, I appreciate your input but please review the entire AfD discussion and you'll see these points have been addressed. Ks64q2 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just because you adressed these points doesn't mean they have been resolved. As others have said, notability is not inherited, just because a couple of notable persons participate in the website, doesn't make the website notable. Also, no one is contesting the notability of sites such as Daily Kos but they are just no reliable sources.--Sloane (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Sir, I appreciate your input but please review the entire AfD discussion and you'll see these points have been addressed. Ks64q2 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI looked at the previous AfD and was surprised to see that it was less than a month ago. This article should have been speedy deleted but apparantely an anonymous user with little edits deleted the tag. I'm going to put it up again and let an admin decide on speedy deletion. A possible revival of this article should have gone through deletion review.--Sloane (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting speedy deletion notice Sir, there are admins in this discussion right now, that's entirely unnecessary. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not seeing any substantive that meets WP:WEB. Past that, I would recommend that the closing admin look at the history of Motley Moose, as there isn't a whole lot of difference between that version that was deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Motley Moose) and the current iteration of the article. I personally think this is a G4 case, but I'll leave that to the closing admin's discretion. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Ks64q2. All that needs to be said here, he has said. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because of a lack of reliable sources.--Caspian blue 06:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I find the weight of the arguments on the keep side to be convincing. --Skandha101 06:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skandha101 (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Should have been speedied as a G4 recreation of deleted material after an AfD and DRV which both clearly showed that deletion was correct. Now that it is here anyway, nothing has changed funcamentally: no significant coverage in reliable independent sources has been shown (despite claims to the contrary), since all the sources are either not very reliable (student newspapers, blogs), not independent (by people involved with the blog, whether they were already writing for it or were just asked to do so), or not significant (fleeting mentions). The "refutations" of these points are not convincing at all. Fram (talk) 07:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Small Correction Sorry, don't want to keep spamming this thread, but you're factually incorrect on the "not independent" item you quoted in your decision. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion, and I honor it no matter what it is, but please remember to assume good faith; the evidence above supports the posited timeline of events, not the one you espouse here. Thank you for your input. Ks64q2 (talk) 09:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't gotten a clue as to what you are correcting here. A source which states "They’re forming a new progressive blog called Motley Moose to provide a troll-free and properly moderated site in which to roam—and they want me to join them! " is not an independent source any longer, and was not very reliable as it was a blog / opinion piece anyway. Fram (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Major Correction - Fram, please see Prospect Magazine; it is not a blog, and please also reference the discussion above, you seem to have missed the pertinent points. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a blog, it is a COI piece with regards to the notability of Motley Moose. So the latter part of my second comment was incorrect, the essential part remains. And I have read the discussion and have seen the pertinent points: just repeating on and on that everyone who disagrees with you has somehow missed all information that clearly establishes how notable this blog is gets a bit tedious though... Fram (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Major Correction - Fram, please see Prospect Magazine; it is not a blog, and please also reference the discussion above, you seem to have missed the pertinent points. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't gotten a clue as to what you are correcting here. A source which states "They’re forming a new progressive blog called Motley Moose to provide a troll-free and properly moderated site in which to roam—and they want me to join them! " is not an independent source any longer, and was not very reliable as it was a blog / opinion piece anyway. Fram (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't know what all those long essays are about: Not in top 100,000 sites at Alexa? No reliable sources that cover this blog, which means no established notability and no verifiability? Therefore no encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an advertising service or a directory.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It's hard to judge this content reasonably with edit warring and acrimony galore. Given those bloggers involved, the subject matter and the current level of heightened political interest and the rising prominence of blogs in the news media world I have to add in WP:CSB in regards to finding sources. Which seems likely, again, do to the nature of the media, the players and content. What remains is neutral writing and legwork, aka clean-up. There seems to be a bias against blogs and bloggers in general and this might be a part of that. Blogs certainly can be reliable sources and more are catching on to becoming reputable sources and many morph into real world notability. This is an emerging field. Once the discussions closes I encourage those interested to dig through deleted content to see if some of the content and cites are salvageable and repurposeable. -- Banjeboi 12:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- merge into the articles of the notable contributors to the blog. Perhaps the sources that are not available on line do provide significant third party coverage that would make the Moose a notable article in itself. However, based on the continued resistance of the supporters to acknowledge that " They’re forming a new progressive blog called Motley Moose to provide a troll-free and properly moderated site in which to roam—and they want me to join them! " is both trivial AND not third party is sufficient evidence for me to question their analysis of the other sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable works of notable people are not notable unless the people are so notable that all of their works are automatically notable. The writers of this blog do not fit that category. Since there is no non-trival coverage of it in reliable third-party sources, this blog fails to meet any notability guidelines on its own. Bongomatic 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ks64q2 is currently going through and "notifying" members of the Article Rescue Squadron of this debate. I believe this to be WP:CANVASSING but since he challenged me on that I'm just posting it here as a notification. Here's some examples of his behaviour: [24], [25], and [26]. ThemFromSpace 18:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I'll happily address that! Here's a pertinent quote:
But what I was wondering is if you'd take a look at the arguments I'm making and see if they are cogent and make sense- just so I can better get an idea of what I need to address. No more, no less- the better I know my strengths and weaknesses, the better I'm prepared in the future.
...and while the current consensus is (barely) keep, it seems like my points on rescuing the article keep getting ignored. If you had a free moment, could you take a look for me? Rather than have you actually contribute to the AfD, to avoid the appearance of meatpuppetry, I would appreciate a review of my own points/counterpoints, so I can improve my own article writing style and help rescue more articles in the future.
- Response I'll happily address that! Here's a pertinent quote:
- If Themfromspace wants to bring more drama into this argument, I suppose that is his own forte, but it seems needlessly messiantic to me. Are we not supposed to be discussing the merits of this article, and not making unbiased personal attacks on others? Sir, as you can plainly see, I understand the dim view taken of canvassing. Please view the edit histories of each person, you'll see they're much more experienced than I and, have been through many an AfD before. Who better to ask for advice? This behavior strikes of a personal grudge; certainly, you could have kept this at my talk page; I could have easily shown this there- especially considering this is the first suggested step at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Thank you, and I apologize to all my fellow editors this had to play out here. Ks64q2 (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt If anyone here cares, i've mentioned the user above here [27]. He persists in attacking other editors, i.e. "If Themfromspace wants to bring more drama into this argument, I suppose that is his own forte." I asked him to desist multiple times. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as mere blogcruft with no credible claim to significance or notability. Eusebeus (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this article is quite well sourced and cited. It just needs some more citations & sources. No need to delete the whole article.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is one of the canvassed users by User:Ks64q2 [28]. Seems like a case of bad faith as well: [29].--Sloane (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have looked at all the arguments presented. It is obviously a young blog but already has substantial known contributors and sources. Seems worthy of entry based on rate of growth to date but sources ought be continued to be added as able. The existing sources are reliable and independent, and the article is in line with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and Wikipedia:IMPERFECT#Perfection_is_not_required. I think the article is a fine edition to the encyclopedia here, and will help set an example other blog entries should follow. Attic Sleuth (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC) — Attic Sleuth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strong Keep I have reviewed in details all of the comments above. I have to agree with Attic Sleuth that this is a young blog but have several well known contributors and a growing blog reader base. In fairness for the Wiki-process, I must mention that I do visit this blog and post there along with blogs like MyDD, DailyKos and C40Democrats.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments There seems to be attempt here to frame folks who support this page as single purpose accounts created solely to support this webpage. This is plainly untrue in my case as I've been with Wikipedia since 2006, way before MotleyMoose came into being. Denoting such is unfair and I might pursue this further. --Louisprandtl (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt ok Louisprandtl. Here's your entire history Louisprandtl (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) You had 3 edits in 2006 involving an attempt to create a page, that didn't get done for one reason or another. Your first edit since 2006 was today -- to this AfD. All of your edits since have been to this AfD or your own userpage (about 6 total). That makes you definitionally an WP:SPA.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt Thanks Mr Bali for admitting that I'm here since 2006 coming especially from somebody who is here from October 2008. Please read the definition of SPA, and you'll know why are you wrong. "A single-purpose account (SPA) is a user account that edits either a single article, a group of related articles, or performs edits to a group of unrelated articles in the same manner on Wikipedia." You're wrong. If you still need the link to SPA page, I would be happy to provide with you with.--Louisprandtl (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The {{spa}} tagging seems (to me) incorrectly applied in your case. But the closing administrator should be able to identify that on review. However, your deletion of the following "delete" opinion (reinstated by another editor) seems to be an attempt to influence the outcome in an even less appropriate fashion. Bongomatic 03:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- cmt An unfair characterization would be deleted, hence it is not an attempt to influence the outcome. If I wanted to do so, I wouldn't have in my first remarks put in the disclaimer that I do visit this blog.--Louisprandtl (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to get into a pissing contest. But I have, uhm, over 3,000 edits here. And you have 19, 12 to this AfD and 7 to your own userspace.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sir, this is not the appropriate forum to discuss whom has the bigger edit count. For instance, I note a significant number of those edits were to this discussion, the Admin discussion you opened, etc. It's not about who has more edits. Please desist this behavior. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you on about Ks64q2? Special purpose account Louisprandtl (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) made some point about how he had a log in since 2006 and therefore was not an SPA and then he "noted" when i started editing, as if that had some bearing on his situation. So I pointed out that less than 20 edits in 3 years, none of them to mainspace, the vast majority of them to this current AfD, actually points to him being a special purpose account rather conclusively (whereas, of course, 3000 edits on a wide range of articles, points towards NOT being an SPA). I won't desist from honestly, specifically and accurately responding to points addressed to me and won't "desist this (sic) behavior."Bali ultimate (talk) 05:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Does not change the fact that you've been here only for last 5 months and I've been here since 2006. Just because you've posted "3000" edits and I've not been an active editor does not entitle you to misuse the SPA characterization.--Louisprandtl (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisprandtl (talk • contribs) — Louisprandtl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment Going back and re-reading your comments and looking at the history, I think I understand what you were saying. I must make clear that I did not intend to delete the following comment. It was an unintended mistake. My earlier reply to you was related to the above SPA characterization.--Louisprandtl (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Louisprandtl has admitted to being a contributor to The Motley Moose, the blog in question.[30]--Sloane (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please look at my Keep Comment above. I've clearly stated here that I do visit and post at MotleyMoose. This was done to preface my Strong Keep comment with the disclaimer of my interest as a regular user of the blog for proper evaluation of my comment. This was done in case there is an "appearance of conflict of interest". --Louisprandtl (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Louisprandtl -- your precise user name at The Motley Moose is #14 and appears to have signed up before the site went live. Are you in fact one of the 25 founders? It does appear that way [31].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This was already answered explicitly here [[32]]. Given the nature of our previous interactions as above,[[33]], your comments and actions in this AFD and elsewhere [[34]] I'm refraining from further communication with you. Thanks. --Louisprandtl (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Louisprandtl has admitted to being a contributor to The Motley Moose, the blog in question.[30]--Sloane (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Blog-froth, not meeting WP:N. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I did not read all the comments, but it is about the notability of the article I believe. So I checked out only the article itself. It appears to be a political blog, conservative republican. To avoid that one might thinks that my vote is only an allegiance vote, I'd like to add that I not identify myself with the content of that blog or would I consider myself to be a Republican (not even by a far stretch of imagination). I agree that the overall sourcing of the article is weak. However, I found one or two of them legitimate and actually pretty good. One source is actually "hostile" towards the blog. Getting noticed and mentioned by your "enemy" is probably one of the best things that could happen to you to proof your notability and relevance. So I suggest keeping the article and adding the necessary templates, including a "stub" template IMO, until it was cleaned up and meets Wikipedia standards.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Once again, this keep argument totally fails to inform us how this website is notable in light of WP:NOTE and WP:WEB guidelines. To repeat, we're looking for reliable and independent sources providing significant coverage, not coverage in other blogs.--Sloane (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not enough independent sources to pass the WP:N test. Sorry. Maybe if you can add more sources I can change my opinion. Basket of Puppies 04:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For Full Disclosure- The version of the article most of the reviews here were based on prior to approximately 24 hours ago looked like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Motley_Moose&oldid=277928852. It has been significantly edited since then. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's close to a db-web speedy: the only reliabls source (in either the current version or Ka64q2's preferred version) is the Prospect article, and the mention there fails the "non-trivial" test of WP:N. And it has WP:COATRACK problems. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I don't see the extensive coverage of The Motley Moose, as a topic, in reliable secondary sources required to meet WP:N. Clearly fails the general notability standard. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete of the references provided, only three are independent from the topic of the article. ([35][36] and a student newspaper) A mention in a student newspaper does not confer notability. And the other two references mention the blog in passing. There are no third-party, secondary, reliable sources describing this topic. Fails WP:V -Atmoz (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No suggestion, even, of actual notability, and no real sources implying it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:WEB - should have been speedied. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't feel any new substantive arguments have been added since my earlier review; WP:WEB is essentially a special case of WP:N. Therefore, I still feel the strength of the argument (irrespective of votes that don't introduce new arguments) remains with keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: so you are adding a comment to state that your earlier opinion is unchanged? What's the point of that? This discussion is already 100K long, if everyone comes along to reaffirm their previous position we can double that without adding any value to the discussion. Fram (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Must kill moose (and sqvirrel). Hal peridol (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ks64q2 has been blocked under WP:3RR for
2412 hours. [37] and as such may not be able to contribute to this. He edited the article to be like [38] but many sources were removed due to people questioning their reliability. Computerjoe's talk 17:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Comment
I'm probably not the right person to point this but above Mr.Bali ultimate (talk) is commenting with the timestamp 19:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC) in this article. Here at 15:13 18 March 2009 (UTC)timestamp [[39]] he promised to the administrator to stay away from this article for the 12 hour period that K64 had been blocked. Am I missing something or concluding wrongly? Please let me know and I'll edit my comment out if I'm wrong.--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- This is not the article. This is the deletion discussion for the article. Bongomatic 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out my mistaken assumption. I was wrong in my assumption that they were referring to this AFD. That makes sense..--Louisprandtl (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the article. This is the deletion discussion for the article. Bongomatic 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New references analysis. Me, I think it's pretty unambiguous. 9Nak (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In addition to comments others have made regarding the lack of coverage, the Alexa ranking for Motley Moose is 216,848. That is far to low for Wikipedia to consider it to be notable. Captain panda 21:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No actual reliable independent coverage of the blog has been shown; that hasn't changed in a very long time. It just ain't notable, folks. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the basic criterion of WP:N, which requires significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. RayTalk 02:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources that have commented in depth on what The Motley Moose actually does. Ref. 4 (Prospect Magazine) says that the blog is about to be launched. Ref. 7 (at Huffington Post) looks like a masthead entry for Michelle Gross that says she also blogs over at Motley Moose. EdJohnston (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Tom 04:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All the sources given are only trivial mentions of the site, in articles on other subects. Without multiple non-trivial reliable independant sources, notability is not established. Also, advertising for a blog is still advertising, even if not directly profit-generating.YobMod 08:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Some well-known people got together and blogged. Not everything done by people of note are notable. If this were considered notable, we would be seeing coverage for it rather than scraping up mentions here and there. It may become more well=-established an notable in the future. But it hasn't made it yet. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. This was a merge request. Merges do not involve deletion. Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- E-waste village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Merge the information over to Guiyu and deleted the redirect. This information doesn't warrant a complete article (non-notable, etc). Killiondude (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing nomination When merging text, the edit history needs to be retained to properly attribute the people who wrote said material as per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. In short: a WP:MERGE is always followed by a redirect, not a delete. If the current location is a problem, it can be moved elsewhere first (for example talkspace) before redirecting.- Mgm|(talk) 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vladimir Doknić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As stated, Vladimir Doknic is playing in the Macedonian First League. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Antivenin 08:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE. I could not find any other clubs that he has played for. --Numyht (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not list in [40], no soucre. Matthew_hk tc 12:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Govvy (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 15:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Rosiestep (talk) 02:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Macedonian First League is the highest possible national level you can get which is textbook example of meeting WP:ATHLETE. What exactly am I missing here? Surely it's impossible for a nominator and 5 commenters to miss that? I'm particularly worried about the nominator's statement. He first explains how the subject meets criteria and goes on to say he fails them... - Mgm|(talk) 10:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably (although he doesn't state it) the nominator believes the Macedonian League is not fully professional, as required by WP:ATHLETE. So we'd need some confirmation one way or t'other on this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From my interpretation of WP:ATHLETE only those players selected to play for the World Cup / other international championships are considered notable, regardless of which country they are playing from. So if the footballer in question was a part of his national team, he should be considered notable. This might be incorrect, someone please confirm so I can correct future mistakes. =) Antivenin 13:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure where you're getting that from. WP:ATHLETE says simply that a player needs to have played at the fully professional level of a sport, it doesn't say anything about having to play in the World Cup. If that was the case we'd have to delete about 20,000 footballer articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll copy-paste what I wrote at Mgm's talk page: The second point seems a follow up to the first. Else, those two points directly contradict each other. The first one says if the tournament is the highest in the country, it's notable. The second says the tournament has to be the highest amateur level of a sport. The Macedonian First League falls under the first, but fails the second. Higher leagues, the FIFA World Cup for example, fall under both the first and second. So I tend to gravitate more towards the interpretation I stated above. (Here the two points refer to the two criteria at WP:ATHLETE) Antivenin 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE says nothing about the highest league in a given country. It says that a sportsperson must have either played at a fully professional level (eg any of the top four divisions in English football but not any level in Welsh football as there are no professional leagues in that country) or at the highest amateur level (usually taken to mean the Olympic or world championships). -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you then judge the professional levels of a sport? A professional would be someone who is paid as a sports person. The Football Conference is the 5th division in English football. Yet it has ' fully professional' players too. So would you include them in the article? If yes, what about the 6th division? 7th? 8th? When do we stop? Antivenin 13:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A fully professional league is one in which all players are full-time professional sportspeople. The Conference is not fully professional, as at least five teams are only semi-professional. Therefore players who have never played higher than the Conference do not get to have articles on WP and in fact dozens have been deleted for just that reason. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea. Understood. I'll keep it in mind next time. The criteria should be more clear though. Antivenin 14:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A fully professional league is one in which all players are full-time professional sportspeople. The Conference is not fully professional, as at least five teams are only semi-professional. Therefore players who have never played higher than the Conference do not get to have articles on WP and in fact dozens have been deleted for just that reason. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you then judge the professional levels of a sport? A professional would be someone who is paid as a sports person. The Football Conference is the 5th division in English football. Yet it has ' fully professional' players too. So would you include them in the article? If yes, what about the 6th division? 7th? 8th? When do we stop? Antivenin 13:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE says nothing about the highest league in a given country. It says that a sportsperson must have either played at a fully professional level (eg any of the top four divisions in English football but not any level in Welsh football as there are no professional leagues in that country) or at the highest amateur level (usually taken to mean the Olympic or world championships). -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll copy-paste what I wrote at Mgm's talk page: The second point seems a follow up to the first. Else, those two points directly contradict each other. The first one says if the tournament is the highest in the country, it's notable. The second says the tournament has to be the highest amateur level of a sport. The Macedonian First League falls under the first, but fails the second. Higher leagues, the FIFA World Cup for example, fall under both the first and second. So I tend to gravitate more towards the interpretation I stated above. (Here the two points refer to the two criteria at WP:ATHLETE) Antivenin 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure where you're getting that from. WP:ATHLETE says simply that a player needs to have played at the fully professional level of a sport, it doesn't say anything about having to play in the World Cup. If that was the case we'd have to delete about 20,000 footballer articles..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While looking for information on the Macedonia League, I foud this rather intriguing story, which says that there are less than 100 profesisonal players in the country and that some top level clubs have no pro players at all. I'll continue digging for something more concrete, but this is something worth noting. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, this story makes things a little clearer - "Seven out of the 12 clubs did not have a single player registered as a professional player although all players in the Macedonian First League are playing professionally". So it appears the league is fully professional... at least it is officially. I wonder if this mess has been sorted out though. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Revolution Parkour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No reliable secondary sources, other than blogs and forums. Antivenin 08:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:ORG. MuffledThud (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Apropos of nothing, that is a hell of a lot of 'parkour's. Maralia (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Search of most major media sources turns up zero hits, fails WP:N/WP:CORP/WP:ORG and anything else. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is pure advertisement and I believe, will hard to be notable this academy one day. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 11:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit - This page needs editing, but it should remain. It is an established company in a small and emerging industry which is why there is a lack of press releases about it. The company has worked, and is currently working on, international projects that have not yet been released to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanresource (talk • contribs) 05:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually no significant media coverage is one of the primary reasons most articles fail WP:N. There's no way to verify the information. Nor to establish notability. Antivenin 13:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bogish Boy Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable record label; cannot find multiple non-trivial mentions in independent, reliable sources. Article says label is "considerably successful" but I can't find any proof of that. Somno (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. No reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only notable act to sign with this record company, Cashis, was much more successful while signed with Shady Records. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 11:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable record label WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Domain Auction Scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unnotable topic; basically a person telling about their being scammed without the personal details per[41]; fails WP:NOT. Wikipedia isn't for soapboxing. Failed PROD with PROD removed by author without reason given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Nothing on Google News, no reliable sources in mainstream Google. Matt (talk) 07:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NOT. Jd027talk 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
"Royal Confraternity" of a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. Appears to have little or no reliable third-party coverage. Disputed WP:PROD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- General comment: the following are the relevant policy and guidelines:
- WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
- WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
- WP:ORG: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
- Weak Keep that is not a reason for deletion; if they want to use the word "Royal," it's their lookout. It seems to have an actual existence & notable members. . I would be very much more satisfied with some neutral reliable source on them , though. DGG (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: (i) lack of third party coverage is a reason for deletion: WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (ii) Even a kids' tree-hut secret-club has "actual existence" (and, it would appear, the same level of both official recognition & third-party coverage as this topic) -- that doesn't make for notability. (iii) Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and a few notable members (many of whom are themselves notable for nothing more than being dis-established royals) does not make this confraternity notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that the part of the nom: " a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. " was not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not directly a reason for deletion, and wasn't intended as one. However a "royal confraternity" implicitly draws its claim to stature from its relationship to royalty -- and when that royalty had been disestablished 90 years before the confraternity is established, this clearly draws its notability into question -- a question that its lack of third party coverage answers in the emphatic negative. Or to put it another way, given the shear volume of hand-waving about (generally bogus) 'inherent notability' that one sees in AfDs, I got my rebuttal in first on whether this topic was inherently notable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that the part of the nom: " a long-abolished monarchy, formed long after that monarchy was abolished -- so having no official status. " was not a reason for deletion. DGG (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I tried to find some reliable, third party sources, but without success. --Yopie 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. While it needs a major cleanup, I can see no compelling reason for its deletion. The fact the Portuguese monarchy no longer officially exists is not a justification for deletion of an article on what appears to be a genuine order with notable members which is apparently open to all Roman Catholics, not just members of the Portuguese monarchy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: so how do you propose getting around the lack of third-party sourcing, and thus notability? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't propose anything. I give my opinion. That's what an AfD debate is for. You have your opinion, I have mine. And remember the notability guidelines are just that - guidelines. They're not set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:V, as quoted above, is not a mere guideline, and likewise requires third-party sourcing -- which is a "compelling reason for its deletion". Your "opinion" does not appear to have any policy basis -- and therefore may be discounted as mere WP:ILIKEIT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't particularly like it. I have no particular views either way. I am merely voicing an opinion, as I stated. This is the whole point of AfDs. An essay (not even a guideline) such as the one you cited provides no basis for discounting the views of a contributor to a discussion. As to verifiability, there are enough third-party sources out there to verify that the order exists, so the policy's requirements are satisfied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bare mention of existence ≠ "significant coverage", so no "the policy's requirements" are not satisfied. The "whole point of AfDs" is to give arguments that are substantiated (by policy and reliable sources). Please read WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD. Opinions lacking any substantiation may be discounted. ("Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.") HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, this is an AfD. Its purpose is to determine whether an article should exist or not. That is completely different from WP:V, which is to determine whether information within an article should be on Wikipedia or not. As I said, there are enough third-party references out there to substantiate its existence. Therefore it meets the requirements for WP:V, the only applicable policy. Notability guidelines are fluid and are guidelines. If they were set in stone then AfD discussions would be rendered obsolete. Notability and Verifiability are different issues. Whether all the information within the article can be verified or not is a separate issue and one we are not discussing here - all that matters is whether the order exists (it clearly does) and whether or not it is notable (which is what we are discussing and is effectively based on opinion).
- So, to recap, there are two separate issues here:
- a) Is the existence of the organisation verifiable? Yes, it is.
- b) Is the organisation notable enough for an article on Wikipedia? What we are here to discuss. I believe it is for the reasons I have given. If you disagree then that is your prerogative, but please do not start quoting non-applicable policies to back up an argument and claim that other editors' opinions are invalid. That is bordering on a lack of civility. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong! WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found featuring significant coverage of a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is not "significant coverage" in "reliable, third-party sources" on the Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio, so "Wikipedia should not have an article on it." So, NO it is NOT "completely different from WP:V". And as it is POLICY not a mere guideline it is NOT "fluid". To recap:
- Is mere existence sufficient to meet WP:V? No it is not. (See quote above.)
- WP:V, WP:GNG & WP:ORG all require significant third party coverage. Has any of your "reasons" discussed this? No they have not. (Nor for that matter have they discussed any relevant policy or guideline supporting your opinion.) Are they therefore in any way relevant? No they are not.
- HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, we are uncivil aren't we! Well, we'll let the closer decide, shall we? I'm rather tired of debating with a ranter. Frankly, I'm not really bothered about this article, but I'm a little surprised at your reaction to someone who dares to disagree with you. You obviously don't like your opinions being challenged. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 05:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I also looked for reliable 3rd party sources without success. dougweller (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Without comment on this article, the above discussion based on the content of WP:V appears to have missed some key facts. The quote from WP:V given by the nominator was from a short-lived version that was reverted fairly quickly because the change (introducing the word 'significant') did not have consensus. Also, the inclusion of 'third-party' in the sentence has been disputed by a number of commenters on WT:V (myself included), and I am uncomfortable with the claim that that has consensus either. WP:N, of course, continues to require significant coverage in third-party sources as it always has, but as Necrothesp points out, we can choose to ignore such guidelines if they tell us to delete an article that common sense indicates we should keep. JulesH (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologise if I was quoting an obsolete/non-consensus version of policy. However, I would question whether we have been presented with any "common sense [reason] indicat[ing] we should keep" -- the best that Necrothesp has come up with to date appears to be the very lowball 'it exists'. Strong, valid reasons for ignoring guidelines need to be clearly articulated for the call to ignore them to be given any weight. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I used my own name which is even mentioned in the Confraternity entry, but I was the one tagged with WP:COI for editing this article. I feel compelled to mention for all those who say they can't find reliable sources that there are quite a few listed when they aren't being wrongly tagged or reverted. All are independent and verifiable. Those are the primary Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources. One challenger seems particularly biased against formally regnant royal houses (PLEASE refer to his own text on the discussion page of the article; this is not my opinion) and apparently assigns negative reliability based on that status. The same challenger questioned the citation of a Spanish publication which was already found in an online bookseller site and for which I offered an electronic version as well. I have asked what facts support the individual's claims that the two royal house websites and the publication are unreliable and the only answer I get is a challenge to produce proof that the Spanish Academy which produces an annual publication listing the Confraternity is "recognized". Since there is no authority in place to do such a recognition this is impossible. How can the source be called unreliable when the challenger has not even reviewed the source itself and doesn't even know the authors? One of the primary authors is Jose Maria de Montells y Galan, who you can find as a direct source in a number of Wikipedia entries which are not challenged. Of course no one bothered to follow this up on the discussion page where I defended this publication and offered to share the information. I would have thought that someone truly concerned with Wikipedia policy and not personal opinion would have wanted to know things like that. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is admittedly weak and needs major revision but we can not do so while the entry is under challenge for deletion. There are many activities which could be referenced with sources such as the websites for the royal houses of Georgia and Rwanda, but as long as they are challenged for being "former royals" and therefore "unreliable" there is no point in adding further target material. I hope to see the notability of this article proved here or in further arbitration and then help to build this article into a more informative one. I thought the purpose of this process was to avoid deletion but one challenger in particular has been completely negative and provided no helpful information to improve the article. My alleged WP:COI edits were to add sources and improve format of sources as they were challenged. DaleLeppard (talk) 04:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would note that:
- DaleLeppard has not presented any evidence that any of these sources are reliable.
- The royal houses in question have overlapping membership with the Confraterntiy, so they are not independent.
- None of the disputed sources are actually WP:CITEd for any specific information in the article, so it is not clear what, if any, information they contribute on the topic. In fact, as of now, the only citationed information in the entire article is that "Saint Theotonius [was] a 12th Century Portuguese canon and royal advisor".
- This lack of citations means that it has not been established that this organisation "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources".
- The sources are independent and verifiable. What possible reason could you have to challenge the reliability of two royal houses and a Spanish publication that you have never even read? Do you hold all Wikipedia articles to this standard because nowhere else do I see such scrutiny applied. It seems you can not be satisfied. You argue that the Confraternity is not notable enough for the Wikipedia yet according to you it influences several royal houses and publications. How is that possible? Your words might even carry weight if you so much as looked at the sources but I had to walk you through all of them myself. The sources were added, as you well know, because you challenged the notability of the organization. That is their purpose. When the arbitration process is completed the article can be revised and appropriate citations can be added based on the sources given as well as new sources applicable to the material that will be added. Yes there are members in these royal houses and many MANY other organizations. Independent means simply that the Confraternity exercises no control over these organizations and entities and that they are not a component of the Confraternity. That is established. Whether there are mutual members is a standard beyond reason. If it was uninteresting to the people in a position to give it credibility it would not be worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia in the first place. Again you ask the impossible. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would note that:
- Delete - There's a lack of independent third-party sources that can be used to establish the notability of this organisation. Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify why you apparently disregard the cited sources. If you are simply assuming the constant erroneous "unreliable source" labels are correct or failing to find something on a search engine then please actually look at the sources cited. If you have questions perhaps they can be answered. I would like to improve this article but only constructive input will help. Third party or independent sources means that the subject organization is not a parent or sibling component of the source and exercises no control over the source. That is the case in all the sources cited. Thanks. DaleLeppard (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the references are used to establish the notability of the organisation. They are simply listed as "general references". No attempt is made to connect them with the content of the article, no attempt is made to show how the support the notability of the group.
There is nothing to suggest that the "Registro De Ordenes De Caballeria Del Reino De Espana" is a reliable source. I found 7 google hits for that publication. Two of them appear to be bibliographic databases; neither could find any library which held the volume. A reliable source would, presumably be available somewhere.
The reference to The Sentinel is insufficient; Sentinel is a disambiguation page which lists 16 local papers by that name. The article title, "Ode to a Portuguese king in a Carlisle church" sounds like a local-interest story. It doesn't sound like the sort of in-depth reporting that would be needed to establish the notability of an organisation.
The third "general reference" does not establish the notability of the organisation. As is to be expected in a "Community Scrapbook", it lists happenings of local interest - an "Academic Bowl" victory by a local middle school; a local church presents "Gold Medal Marriage Awards" to three couples who were married 51, 54 and 62 years respectively. And the "Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio" donates $1000 to the local Habitat for Humanity. There's no investigation in "Community Scrapbook" articles. The reporter almost certainly did not ask the couples for proof they had been married 62 years. This isn't investigative reporting. This isn't subject to intense fact-checking. But most importantly, the three-sentence paragraph in the "community scrapbook" does nothing to establish the notability of the group. That paragraph wouldn't establish notability in Wikipedia. Simply referencing it outside of Wikipedia does not magically make it sifficient to establish notability here. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the references are used to establish the notability of the organisation. They are simply listed as "general references". No attempt is made to connect them with the content of the article, no attempt is made to show how the support the notability of the group.
- Comment: during this AfD DaleLeppard has:
- Flagrantly disregarded the advice of {{Uw-coi}} that "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when: ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;" (emphasis in original)
- Made edits to the article that go well beyond WP:COI#Non-controversial edits, and has included removal of templates, introduction of unreliable wiki references (in a manner that also violates WP:MOS#Link titles incidentally), reintroduction of an unpublished and thus unverifiable reference.
- Has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims about the independence and reliability of sources. I would note that despite his pretense that I am the sole skeptic on this that (i) that the reliability of the Spanish source was challenged by Yopie first, and (ii) that nobody except DL is defending these sources. I would further note that the membership of the Rwandan 'King' and a "claimant to the headship of the Royal House of Georgia" in this organisation clearly impeaches the independence of these 'Royal Houses' as sources.
- I would conclude by requesting that DaleLeppard exercise restraint on this AfD (in keeping with WP:COI) and that in particular he take lengthy discussions of the reliability of sources either to talk (to which I've removed his latest, lengthy missive) or to WP:RS/N, which are the more appropriate fora for these discussions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It looks like an improper policy interpretation is being used as pointed out by JulesH Since WP:V states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.", not whether the coverage meets individualized "significance" tests. As far as WP:V, Necrothesp makes a valid point that there are verifiable third party sources. Msnpilot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msnpilot (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn with all !votes for keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Memory Banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable comic strip. Cerejota (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Long running british comicstrip appearing in widely publiushed anthology comics. Artw (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Artw (talk) 06:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As mentioed in he article discussion page, Memory Banks is the name of a notable comic strip which appeared in a TWO notable comics. This article explains about this. It should not be deleted. Some other strips also have their own articles. --Cexycy (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I click on the wikipedia links to the two comic strips its appeared in, and both seem to have been around a long time, and are quite notable. Dream Focus 11:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I remember Memory Banks :) Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, rename to Memory Banks (comics), since there are other uses for that term 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy close request from nom please, however, I do suggest disambiguation with (comics). Also, next time establsih notability explicitly: this is a world-wide encyclopedia.--Cerejota (talk) 01:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. Chzz ► 22:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Joubert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Not notable; can't find anything on the web; references are too insufficient to be checked out properly. If notability can be established, would be OK - but I can't see sign of it, and can't find a suitable source to do it myself. Chzz ► 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep by nom; found references -- Chzz ► 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Gorman (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I admit, I have no idea how AfDs for dabs are normally handled but this dabs a redlink (with no history) and a n-n businessman, who I just speedied as a copyvio, which was how I found this article. I think a dab is unnecessary and that it could be re-created if there were articles written about notable Chris Gormans? StarM 03:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Disambig page that doesn't link to any articles is pointless, so obvious deletion candidate. The Seeker 4 Talk 04:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While it might be useful to have a disambiguation page for multiple clearly-notable titles (debateable), it surely isn't for when we don't know of any notable topics. Useless. Nyttend (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Theseeker4 -- no point in having a dab page that doesn't link anywhere. Matt (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Now a useless page. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - So we've got a disambig page for two people, neither of whom have links? There can't really be any other outcome. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Barely avoids a A1/A3. It's just a useless page which does nothing for Wikipedia. --Numyht (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gevork Nazaryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable individual. The article was recreated by the subject of the article after a PROD deletion, so I'm listing it here rather than prodding so it can be speedied if recreated in future. Phil153 (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, plainly a total lack of notability. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clearly fails to meet WP:PROF. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless evidence of notability in reliable sources is provided. Robofish (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, will reconsider if independent reliable sources are shown; present sources in article are inadequate. The matter is actually simpler because the subject was the author, because we may generally assume that the author, knowing his own work and history, would give us the most notable incidents and publications, and, on the face, if everything in the article is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), it's inadequate for inclusion. If that changes in the future, great! He can come back. --Abd (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- delete PhD student, book due in 2010. fails WP:PROF, book is crystal ball. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closed. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Closed. is another Facebook group that somebody made a Wikipedia page for. It has no references, nor does it a large following save a few Facebook users, and no media coverage or significance of any kind whatsoever. I recommend a speedy deletion per WP:NN. Another-anomaly (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEPClosed., while only a Group on Facebook, is large enough and growing fast enough to be newsworthy in short order. IT currently has had no media exposure, but has 400,000+ members and is growing at a rate of ~60 people per minute. There are other articles devoted to viral phenomenon on wikipedia, chocolate rain for instance, and there is no reason that this should be any exception. I am the creator of this wikipedia page, as well as the current admin of the CLOSED. Facebook group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotzur (talk • contribs) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chocolate rain has been covered by major news outlets due it's Youtube view count and references in other media, like most sustained Internet phenomenons. If the same happens to Closed., then the article will be due to be written(hopefully by someone other than the group administrator per WP:NN) but until then it is not by a long shot notable enough for Wikipedia inclusion. You also may wish to sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end. Another-anomaly (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet any of the criteria for web content per WP:WEB. --Rudimae (talk) 04:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly not notable: no coverage, obviously not an inherently notable topic, and clearly a COI. Nyttend (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as self-promotion. WillOakland (talk) 06:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero notability --Numyht (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn. -- samj inout 16:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage, so inherently non-notable, failing WP:WEB. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. T-95 (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete. Why wait?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12, blatant copyright violation from http://www.adventurecycling.org/routes/floridaconnector.cfm?pg=more Mgm|(talk) 12:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Florida Connector Bicycle Route (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
An apparently non-notable bike route mapped by Adventure Cycling Association. While the association is notable, there's no evidence whatsoever its various routes are. StarM 03:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Adventure Cycling Association. If the association is notable but the route isn't, I'd say that the route doesn't deserve its own article, but it would be fair enough to preserve the information inside of another article. Matt (talk) 08:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawing because it's going to snow but I disagree that there's anything in this article that establishes notability. It exists, but that doesn't confer notability. StarM 00:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Graham Correctional Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Are all jails inherently notable? I find no evidence this one is. There are news mentions, which talk about vacancies at the jail and prisoners being sentenced there, but I don't find anything *about* the jail to establish notability. As a result, there's a stub with more tags than text. StarM 03:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' This is not a jail exactly, but a medium/high security prison with over 1500 inmates. Such institutions are major economic forces in their community, and information for notability will always be forthcoming. This does not apply to town lock-ups, nor to small work-camps.
- Keep. There are news mentions of this jail; I found an article about an overcrowding problem and an article about a security breach in a news archive search. On this basis it passes WP:V, plus it's a decently-sized medium-security prison, which makes it notable enough. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, I'd say that all prisons of any size are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree, facilities with close to 2000 inmates and a (1998) operating cost of $29,005,661 [42] have a significant impact on the surrounding community and are thus notable. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 22:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3, Confirmed hoax Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Phineas and Ferb: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Deleted PROD. Article was then deleted as a vandalism hoax then recreated by original article creator. PROD concern was: Future films are not notable without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, none found. Links provided go to non-existent pages or don't support article. NrDg 02:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins see also Special:Undelete/Phineas_and_Ferb:_The_Movie --NrDg 03:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also Special:Undelete/Jazz_Jackrabbit:_The_Series and Special:Undelete/Coco_Bandicoot_(game) and User:Sophisol1 block log for context. The article creator has also created hoax TV episodes [43] and [44]. --NrDg 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Future hoax film talked about oddly in the past tense as if it aired, several of the templates copied from other articles such as the Wizards of Waverly Place film. Nate • (chatter) 03:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as blatant hoax, recreate it if is true but rewrite it. --Numyht (talk) 12:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. Article author has been indef blocked as sockpuppet/vandal. ... discospinster talk 14:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax.Nrswanson (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its a hoax Jamestilley (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Its a hoax. Get rid of it.Spears154 (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Victor Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Band member not notable on his own. Fails WP:BIO GtstrickyTalk or C 02:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'd have to say that Victor Love is pretty notable indeed. I found plenty of links talking about him and all the movies and TV shows he's been in. Oh wait, that's Victor Love the actor. Victor Love the musician? Nothing. Delete. Matt (talk) 08:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, deletion with humour, nice one Matt. Delete, fails WP:CREATIVE, lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable outside of his band (not saying they're notable). Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 11:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, now I'll say it. Dope Stars Inc. are not notable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep; there is little doubt that this place exists, and the enormous weight of precedent is that all secondary schools are (inherently) notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fremont High School (Indiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I believe this article doesn't have enough content to merit a WP page. It has a small list of faculty but no real insight on the goings-on of the school.
That being said, Schools don't qualify for CSD. --~**_mustafarox_**~ (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally unverifiable and even if it was, it's not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, what do you mean "unverifiable"? It took me all of 30 seconds to find the school's web page. Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which doesn't have the list of teachers supposedly at the school according to this article. If you're going to drop in a link, make sure it actually backs up the material. - Mgm|(talk) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep High Schools are notable.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable is one thing, but you need actual material to write an article and you can't write an article entirely based on a non-independent source according to WP:RS. - Mgm|(talk) 15:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. High schools are generally considered inherently notable. I removed the list of faculty members because that's not the sort of content that belongs in an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep High schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - high schools have a significant community presence and the page should be researched and expanded not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Fremont, Indiana, which has enough room for a section on education. - Biruitorul Talk 18:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Common outcome for high schools is keep, due to their influence on the communities they serve. This is one area where even-handed treatment of all high schools is for the ultimate good of the project (and efficiency at AFD). Townlake (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, keep votes are common because of people blindingly voting keep without judging the relevant article on its individual merit. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete High schools are not inherently notable. Lack of reliable secondary sources; fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The article has changed but it still fails to come up with proper independent sources. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_High_Schools_at_WP:AfD. Needs more information, cites. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Plenty of good cites exists - see [45]. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC) I've added some cites. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per established precedent for inclusion of articles about High Schools. Wiki accepts that even an unsourced article for such will gain sourcing with time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pending a rewrite of the rules, high schools are generally viewed as being notable institutions. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not to sound repetitive, but High Schools are inheritantly and naturally notable by oft stated policy. Work to improve rather than delete.--Buster7 (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for my usual reasons. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Every high school about which reliable sources exist should have an article Jwray (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Secondary schools are generally considered inherently notable. -- Lucas20 (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Greed (comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence the short lived comic was notable, associated article on the web toon is gone and I can find no evidence any of it is or was notable. StarM 01:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Artw (talk) 07:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only sources provided are links with no content related to this comic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. -- samj inout 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N and even WP:V. (Emperor (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Jesse Leach. MBisanz talk 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Empire Shall Fall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:BAND scope_creep (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Merge to Jesse Leach. Band is notable per WP:Band #6. Jesse Leach has been part of a notable band. --Rudimae (talk) 03:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A merge would soon overload Jesse's article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 03:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jesse Leach. The band has established no stand alone notability with reliable, third-party, sources, outside the fact Mr Leach played with them. A merge wouldn't overload the JL article since it is only 8 KB long to start with. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge until they do something more themselves. After the release of an album there should be enough, but not now. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jesse Leach. No stand alone notability. JamesBurns (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SureClick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Completion of incomplete nomination. No rationale given by nominator. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; I lost my connection while Twinkle was doing its magic. Here's what the rationale was supposed to be:
It's not quite clear just what the article is about. It starts off as being about a medical device currently on the market. Later, there's a discussion of how the device would be classified compared to alternatives but then says it doesn't need to be classified.
Footnote 6 follows a paragraph; if you click through to that link, it appears that almost the entire paragraph was lifted from that source. That's not the only example like that.
"Feasibility study," "Design Prototyping," and "Design validation and transfer" are all "under construction"? While everything in WP is permanently under construction, that statement, repeated several times in this article, gives it the appearance of one person's half-done essay.
The entire "Product design and development" section doesn't appear to be about the same topic at all. The name "SureClick" is only used once in this entire section, and briefly at that.
And so on, and so on, through a section about FDA manufacturing requirements and testing procedures that also contains "under construction" sections, plus sections on clean room equipment and personnel.
And then there are customer complaints about the product, all of which have come from bulletin boards (per the cites--some of the very few citations in this article). This is followed by a lengthy section on Amgen's complaint handling procedures and the FDA requirements. At this point, it should be no surprise that the "Further reading" section consists entirely of works by Amgen scientists.
There may or may not be a good article buried in this. I can't tell. But the article, as it stands now, is either too vague about its focus or it's written so deeply in jargon that an interested reader can't even tell what it's on. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating:
Automated Tissue Image Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This has the same mix of different articles all jumbled together, none of it complete, and at least some of it copyvio (from here and here, in this example). The article starts off about one thing, veers into other topics, and crashes and burns at:
...con't under development (hd)...sep 5: (variables/loops/branches); Objects; Data types; notation/syntax; methods; relation to other high level languages such as C++ (both derived from); namesspaces; exception/event handling.
Some of it is word for word the same as Design controls. And yes, these are all from the same editor. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rewrite There are several articles buried here. The main use of this is to add content to he article on Autoinjectors, a long-established medical device. The second one would be this specific brand or type--I have not yet quite figured out which. The specific drugs injected by them belong in separate articles. The material on the conditions for their testing and how to sell them may not be of sufficient interest for a general encyclopedia. They read like they were copied from some product manual. DGG (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I should probably mention that along with nominating these two for AFD, of the editor's other articles, I've put Eutectic bonding process, Glide SDI, Humira Pen, Parallel gap welding, Pegintron Redipen, Silver epoxy, and Thermosonic bonding all up for CSD G12 (copyvio). At the moment, I personally wouldn't trust anything he's written to be his own words, and so, I don't think we should use even selections from these articles towards building a GFDL encyclopedia. But that's my 2¢. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation. The present articles are enough of a mess to require a fundemental rewrite to produce an encyclopedic article. Adding to that the known copyright issues and there is nothing to save. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withholding judgement: I've removed all the things that have only tangential references to the subject. These include 90% of the text, as there were entire FDA regulation texts and manuals on product testing and complaint processes. I can only hope that these were copyvio, cause otherwise the writer has real issues. I'll now try to find some third part sources, and ensure what's left is not copied from the web. T L Miles (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Keep: I've done what I can do: basically removed most of the article, checked what remains vs google and found no copyvio, rewrote some in a more neutral tone, and I provided a couple of independent references. The fact that one version of the product was recalled in Europe (a fact not mentioned in the previous incarnation) makes it notable. T L Miles (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the comprehensive nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Are there any problems mentioned which are still in the article? Most of the article was deleted, so I see no problems now with what's left. I say keep both, and discuss any problems in the talk page, tagging things when necessary, and working through like that. Article deletion should be done as a last resort. Dream Focus 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments My current thoughts:
- T L Miles has done a great job of turning a sow's ear into a silk purse on SureClick. Thanks!
- Given that SureClick is a near-orphan, I'm still not entirely sure it's actually notable enough for an article. It's short enough now that I think what's there could just be merged into Autoinjector.
- This AFD is for two articles, not just one. Should the Automated Tissue Image Systems AFD be split out? That article is still a trainwreck, and so needs either similar treatment or deletion. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retro duo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. Game console with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a perfect example of why when an editor prods an article, he should also add that article to his watchlist. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - before I form an opinion on this article, I will save people the trouble of trying to find any sources per WP:RS. This is what is out there, Battle Creek Enquirer blog article, CNET Gadget Review, and a blogger from The Examiner. To be quite honest I really don't see these as that reliable so I am leaning delete for now. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources, fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per precedent set for such articles. Current sources squeek by. The Examiner cite is the "blog" of Zach Rhoads, a software developer and the Examiner's online expert explicitly hired as their "Chicago Gadgets Examiner". The Battle Creek Enquirer cite is the "blog" of Marcus Anderson, a freelance writer and video game reviewer hired for his expertise. Neither are simply some fan's blog posting... as they are opinions offered by experts in their field specifically qualified to speak on the subject... just as is the CNET review. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the improvement by the ARS's. ;-) MuZemike 15:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep referenced at the CES show at IGN and you can buy it here Amazon Kagetto (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 08:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Alan Carter (Pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
As I said in the prod tag that was removed by an IP without further improvement to the article: if a flight instruction video was this man's only TV appearance, he is neither an actor, nor is he notable under Wikipedia criteria (one event). Later, it was added that he also appeared in other, similar features, but I don't think that it justifies an article. De728631 (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A multitude of people would meet such a notability criterion. By the author's admission, "there [is] nowhere else on the internet that you can find information about him", which, these days, is somewhat of a testimony to lack of notability. —BillC talk 01:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 02:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO. I found a few sources on Google for "alan carter pilot" but it's just some videos of Alan Carter giving tours of airplanes. Big deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd027 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability, no independent references. If he is 'highly regarded as one of the worlds best Boeing 747-400 captains', then why is he currently working for an airline that doesn't operate the type? . . Rcawsey (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fact that he has produced aviation videos may not seem like a big deal to some of you but the teachings of Christainity may not be a big deal to Hindus does that mean that they shouldn't be on wikipedia too? Your argument and logic are floored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookaburra125 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete Alan is well known amoungst flight enthusistasts and has made more than one appearance as it states on his page, just because you've never heard of him doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a page, the whole point of wikipedia is to educate and seeing as the two above commentors don't know who he is then he justifies a page. — 10:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kookaburra125 (talk • contribs)
- WP:BIO gives guidance on what establishes notability for a person. You need to establish your case from material that is on that page. For example, has he "received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them"? Or has he "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"? —BillC talk 19:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, you have already made a comment (in Wikipedia parlance, a !vote) on this page. You need to be clear that both comments come from you. I have moved your comment so it's clear they are both yours. You are free to make further edits as you wish, but please don;t let it look like it was two different people. —BillC talk 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete Omg you people voting to delete this are all very very sad people! Why does it make a diffrence if its here or not, obviously someone wanted it here or they wouldn't of put it on so if you dont like it then dont look at it! GET OVER IT GUYS! Especially BILL C by the way, seriously get a life you loser!
- Delete no evidence of notability. Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Palladium (Australian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non notable band. Not to be confused either with present day English band of the same name (formerly known as The Peppernotes) or an earlier 1970s band. No allmusic.com entry. Released one compilation album, one EP and one single, none of which charted. Band has ceased to exist since 2003. Was previous speedy candidate in 2008 [46]. Fails WP:BAND JoannaMinogue (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom cf38talk 11:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the ref's that have been added post AfD nom confirm that all 3 of their releases have been through Warner Music Australasia, thus passing WP:MUSIC#C5; [47], [48], [49]. The Allmusic does list the correct album, but against the English band, not the Aussie one, [50]. Not that that adds to the notability a all, I just like to hear the sound of my own voice. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 11:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Freudian slip? JoannaMinogue (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, do you not hear your own voice in your head when you type??? Mine sounds like a cross between Orson Welles & Barack Obama. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Talking to one-self in a different voice, is usually the first sign of madness. JoannaMinogue (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Awww crap, I'm screwed now. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Talking to one-self in a different voice, is usually the first sign of madness. JoannaMinogue (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, do you not hear your own voice in your head when you type??? Mine sounds like a cross between Orson Welles & Barack Obama. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 09:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Freudian slip? JoannaMinogue (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - As much as I disagree with WP:MUSIC#C5, this band fits the criteria. This case is very cut and dry.OlYellerTalktome 19:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient mainstream releases to be considered notable. WWGB (talk) 08:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Had a notable musician as an important member, Andrew Morris [51]. Redirect is not appropriate due to their major label releases. (I remember these mob. I think that had reasonable press coverage when they were around) Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep/Neutral. Not too impressed by the sourcing, and one album is never going to be enough to pass WP:MUSIC (4/5-track CD singles ain't albums). I'm inclined to give the article a chance, though.--Michig (talk) 07:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes notability and references check out Jamestilley (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SpiritWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article appears to be an attempt at a novel synthesis of various strains of New Age beliefs, borrowing from indigenous belief systems from all over the world. In my opinion the article is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy pertaining to no original research WP:OR and that both its style and tone are unencyclopedic. The article also contains a number of images that are claimed to be "free for use" by the editor that submitted them, but in checking the website that is purportedly their source, the National Library of New Zealand digital collection[52] I discovered that in fact *none* of the images are to be used without adhering to certain terms and conditions prior to using them.[53] Deconstructhis (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguate. The non-free images should be discussed at IfD rather than here, and criticism of the article's style and tone is not grounds for deletion. (If you don't like the style and tone of an article, improve it.) However, I believe the WP:OR argument will be fatal to the article in its current form.
- "SpiritWorld" is a very plausible search term, and therefore it should not be a redlink. Therefore this article should be a redirect or disambiguation page.
- On balance I feel any relevant content should be merged to the various cultural and religious articles involved, and this should become a disambiguation page leading to those articles.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the tip on the complaints regarding the images, I'll keep that in mind for next time, although if you examine the talk page of the article you'll discover why I think that issue should be dealt with ASAP. As far as I can tell, "SpiritWorld", the title of the article, is a self coined neologism and thus shouldn't appear in an article in the encyclopedia at all. In terms of your assessment of "style and tone" not being eligible criteria for deletion, I'd have to disagree, at least in this case. Take the very first paragraph of the article for example, I'd suggest that both its style and tone, make it almost incomprehensible. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. I do suggest that you list any images or other non-text content you're concerned about here: WP:IFD. I find the language in the article a little hard to parse, but I don't agree that it's incomprehensible. I do agree the article fails WP:NOR.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the tip on the complaints regarding the images, I'll keep that in mind for next time, although if you examine the talk page of the article you'll discover why I think that issue should be dealt with ASAP. As far as I can tell, "SpiritWorld", the title of the article, is a self coined neologism and thus shouldn't appear in an article in the encyclopedia at all. In terms of your assessment of "style and tone" not being eligible criteria for deletion, I'd have to disagree, at least in this case. Take the very first paragraph of the article for example, I'd suggest that both its style and tone, make it almost incomprehensible. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
kia ora, Deconstruct, S Marshall,
The observation was made, on Talk:SpiritWorld by User:Nortonew, that a Spirit_World_(Native-American) article needs to be written ... and I would observe also a Spirit_World_(World Indigenous Oral Tradition) page. And I agree, and hope to lend a hand there in the future.
As to the origin of the universal cultural icon of "Spirit World", well I never coined it ... witness 1,480,000 Google entries for that phrase. Clearly this article SpiritWorld can be refined and expanded dramatically, and I and others I am sure will do so ... yet this particular article is not oriented towards a specific regional or cultural focus, but clearly towards the global. {Now that this article is complete enough to attract interest and clear intent, I will reach out to others that have expertise in the subject and suggest they lend a hand at the growth and polishing of the SpiritWorld article. (Should this article name be changed to Spirit_World??)}.
I suppose Wikipedia itself would be labeled as "New Age" by many, as would this or any of the native, spiritual, or cultural articles or traditions worldwide. I suppose it depends on who is defining the term New_Age. Here at Wikipedia it is described as largely "Western", in contrast to this SpiritWorld article which is equally Eastern and Oriental, because it is global. As I resided in Aotearoa, New Zealand, for four years ... and my wife is Japanese ... it is not possible or interesting for me to attempt to be 'Western'.
arohanui, enfolding love ... Millennium Twain (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no 'world indigenous oral tradition' as such, and to suggest otherwise is an obvious violation of the rule against original synthesis. (For a start, who isn't indigenous to the world?) The various spirit worlds (note two words, no caps) of mythologies from around the world are diverse and distinct, and deserve separate, intellectually rigorous treatment and proper research. If a 'worldwide' article is needed, it should be primarily a disambiguation page to point people to the various specific pages. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as incoherent and unencyclopedic. The topic, whatever it is supposed to be, is completely unclear and amorphous. There is no way to make any judgment on what sources and concepts are appropriate to include or exclude. This kind of essay-like synthesis could easily consist of a hodgepodge of material from areas of religion, mythology, metaphysics, paranormal, superstition, mental illness, quantum physics, meditation, prayer, folklore, et cetera, et cetera. Tim Shuba (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a garbled synthesis. Contains some demonstrably untrue statements too: "The Rigveda... have survived as texts from the 2nd or 1st millennia BC. They were first recorded by scribes perhaps as much as five millennia earlier." (i.e. placing a system of narrative writing in the 6th or 7th millenium BC. See History of writing for why this is untrue). —BillC talk 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete chaotic, unencyclopedic essay. DGG (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
obvious redirect, if worth keeping, to Spirit world, itself a disambig page. Sticky Parkin 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "...our relationship to all our sister/brother trees...", "Women are said have a most sensitive connection" do I need to read the whole article? SpinningSpark 22:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Incomprehensible gobbldygook. Original research Senor Cuete (talk) 02:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
- Strong delete - neologism and synthesis. (Oh, and syncretism as well.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Formula Racing Development Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Subject has not recieved significant coverage in reliable secondary soruces independent of the subject:
- Google web search brings up their website and nothing else.
- Google news search brings up nothing.
The Honda and Toyota search results are unrelated. Pattont/c 12:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, "FRD Motorsports" brings up 29,700 results, and just skimming them it appears that the topic is notable. Belasted (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable, under the name FRD etc Chzz ► 16:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to FRD Motorsports as that seems to be the common name. Aubergine (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the commemt above that google only brings up their own website is ridiculous. I got 292,000 hits from the link provided. Admittedly, it is not a good search string and has a lot of irrelevant hits but I am sure Patton did not check all of them. Here is a better search string that gets 38,000 hits, mostly relevant. Including Asian Motorsport, Beijing Magazine, [54], Motion Cars (Phillipines mag), Supercar Club, Hong Kong from just the first three pages. SpinningSpark 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - based upon a possibly bad search. GNews seems to have useful RS's. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 22:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Emotional releasing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article claims a bloke or group invented a technique/cliche which is well known in new age/therapy circles, but the supposed creator never wrote any publications which are available in the mainstream, nor has he been discussed anywhere much. One book mentions him in a list of several people [55] and his followers have released two press releases [56] and that's all their mentions in the press. There's one book (?) written in German about them, but it's by a press associated with their movement and dedicated solely to their subject. [57] . I suppose an article could be written about the concept in therapies based on WP:RS but it would be nigh impossible as 'emotional releasing' is such a diffuse phrase and concept employed in different ways. Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Sticky Parkin 02:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pn - Can't find any workable refs Chzz ► 16:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ptiche (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback. About workable references: I have been checking the sources of the books about releasing. There are 5 books about releasing. It's true 3 books are from Sheema Medien Verlag (www.sheema.de). The creation of Sheema was inspired by the Releasing work, but it now has several other titles. More importantly, the fourth and fifth book are published by regular publishers:[reply]
Ich lasse los . . . Innere Heilung und spirituelles Wachstum. Die Releasingmethode für Laien und Therapeuten. C. Langholf - 3. überarbeitete Auflage, Sich Verlag Magdeburg 2008 - ISBN 978-39511692-5-6
Aufbruch nach Hause - Frauen unterwegs zu sich selbst. Ein spirituelles Praxisbuch für die Reise der inneren Heldin (Taschenbuch) von Sabine Treeß (Autor) - Taschenbuch: 352 Seiten - Verlag: Via Nova; Auflage: 1 (März 2004) - ISBN-10: 3936486468 - ISBN-13: 978-3936486469
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Phasebuilder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
WP:NN software product. Borderline advert. Unable to find G-hits beyond promotional pieces. No G-news hits. Failed {{prod}} when sole author removed tag. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find any reliable sources writing about this product. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Delete per Whpq, can't find secondary coverage. Written like an advert. FingersOnRoids♫ 19:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP AND REFER TO RELEVANT EXPERTS this is a software tool that is used in control engineering. it's a technical, specialist subject; we need people who write about such things to submit their opinions on this. it's not reasonable to just categorize it as "general nn software". granted, the copy is a bit nnpov/advert-ish, BUT consult with whichever wikipedians work on the relevant subjects. inappropriate to delete based on uninformed (non expert) opinions (no offense intended to the previous commentors). Lx 121 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination is the referral, it does not need to go anywhere else. It is being challenged for notability, not for technical correctness, experts are not needed (but welcome). SpinningSpark 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have done some PLC design work in the past but have never heard of this - although that is not conclusive, I don't have extensive experience in the field. However, it is not often that I do a Google search on a borderline product and get only 12 hits. Five of those are Logicon, its subsidiaries and directories listing it. Two are Wikipedia and mirrors. Three are broken or dead and one is an exhibition stands listing. So, an article written from the sources would be able to state two verifiable facts: the product was once demonstrated at an exhibition and it has a Wikipedia article. I think we can bring that down to one shortly. SpinningSpark 21:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello critics! I can't seem to talk to you (or don't know how). Very frustrating! This technique of developing a control system is unique. It's just like SIEMENS or Wonderware that are also on Wikipedia (amongst others) but has an ability to print design documents from a control system in word. Please don't have it deleted as I've gone to a lot of trouble to explain how it fits into the Automation Industry. Davmaher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davmaher (talk • contribs) 12:39, 16 March 2009
- Reply - the key thing that is needed is reliable sources covering the product to establish notability. This would be things such as independently written in-depth articles in trade journals and publicaitons. Note that press releases or material that are just rephrasings of press releases don't count. -- Whpq (talk) 12:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that the sources are still only the maker's own websites. The author has now read this page and is aware of the reason for proposed deletion, but nothing has been done. I don't believe that there is likely to be any suitable sources found. Davmaher, to answer your question about contacting editors: you do that by leaving a message on their talk pages - for instance mine is User talk:Spinningspark - but you are better off leaving your comments here where everyone can see them. Better still, find some quality sources and prove us all wrong. We appreciate you have put a lot of work into the article but Wikipedia requires notability to be proven with reliable sources. SpinningSpark 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vic xin yi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a 15-year-old Malaysian "part-time singer", input by Xin Yi FC (talk · contribs), which does not establish notability to the standard of WP:BAND. Tagged for references for a month, but none provided, and Google finds very little either for Vic Xin Yi or Xin Yi Vic. Main claim to fame is winning "Haloforest talent quest" and some "Haloforest awards"; I can't find much in English about Haloforest but this job ad says it's a "music + art academy." Language problems may be impeding the searches, but I think a notable singer would have had more impact than this; maybe she will become notable one day, but not yet. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established yet WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sourcing available to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 02:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 06:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Zero hits in Chinese, no relevant ones in English. Haloforest would appear to be a non-notable talent agency [58]; they have no record of this girl either in English [59] or Chinese [60]. cab (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to SAP AG. MBisanz talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SAP User-Group Executive Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
In contesting the prod, the author expanded the article by stating what this organization does. But there is nothing in terms of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETEThis "Organization" is a collaboration of consultants trying to use Wikipedia to advertize. The whole article is more or less their business model and the deliverables they offer to clients. Should have been submitted for Speedy--Nefariousski (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minor industry association with no showing of notability. Article seems to be a coatrack meant to insert links to various consulting firms into Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone, just FYI, SAP User Groups are not-for-profit organizations and represent local customers. They are no consulting companies and therefore do not use Wikipedia to advertise themselves or make money. Marco.dorn 11:32, 13 March 2009 (CET)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There seem to be independent sources available to comply with WP:RS, like this from The Financial, or this one from PC World and there are other ones on Forbes, but I am having trouble accessing them + more here. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP and/or MERGE it belongs somewhere in the SAP user groups material, which is accepted as legitimate. this is a specialist subject, it would be worth checking with people who write on the subject to determine notability here. Lx 121 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While it does seem possible that notability could be established per Marcusmax (here's a couple more International Business Times and Computer Weekly) I see an article that is entirely written to promote the organisation and thus fails WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMOTION. Maybe it could be rewitten, but only by first deleting everything that's there already and then writing from the sources. The only source that is currently used is the organisation's own website. SpinningSpark 21:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Spinningspark.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect: to SAP AG. No independently published Gnews hits. Fails WP:Corp Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect: to something?. No independently published Gnews hits. Sorry Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. further discussion seems unnecessary, the consensus is clear enough. DGG (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Spiros Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Bringing to AfD because PROD tag was removed. This article is about "Spiros Medicine," a theory made up by one person, the only evidence of which I could find on his website [61]. The website doesn't really describe what this is but presents some sort of theory of everything/force of the universe prose. FlyingToaster 06:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, without prejudice to re-creation. I have no idea whether this is a notable fringe theory or not; but the text on this page, vague musings about cosmic oneness -- "Spiros" was "first knowledge", one of the most important concepts in life. This ancient word/concept has been removed from all modern dictionaries! Hippocrates said to look at the "wisdom from the ancients". He died, the same year Socrates was executed for teaching about this word, in 400 BCE. This concept comes from thousands of years before Hippocrates. The oldest science writings are the "Rig Veda". [Genesis of the Bhagavad Gita.] The Greeks interpreted these concepts and put them in a form of a science theory, giving us the word "Spiros". Written in Sanskrit, is the description of a force that connects all things. -- strikes me as completely and irredeemably confused. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider speedy deletion as promotional article. User name matches article, was created repeatedly at different locations, and name has now been blocked. Dekimasuよ! 04:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While the author was clearly trying to promote this, I don't think it's written in a style that's promotional enough for G11. FlyingToaster 04:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete = A Google search turns up this Wikipedia page and the pages of the spirosmedicine dot-org site. This fails verifiability and notability. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm with Ihcoyc/Smerdis of Tlön on the "completely and irredeemably confused" and I'd characterise this as WP:BOLLOCKS.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GreenZap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This service was never really started up. It was a simple scam that died out before it ever started. I think it really has no value as its own article. At most it could be mentioned as past scam on some other page. As of right now its also orphaned and has been abandoned by Wiki editors for over 6 months. JeremyWJ (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have subst'd in page, category info etc. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. News coverage is not great [62], a little spammy, but I'd say the cease and desist orders in multiple states are enough to establish notability. The controversy section is out of proportion with the rest of the article, but that's not as fatal here as it would be with a BLP article. Orphaned and abandoned are reasons for editing, not deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand orphaned and abandoned are not really reasons to delete. They do however help my point that this article is useless. It has no point on wikipedia. There are literally thousands of scams like this every year. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The people who were behind Greenzap would like this article to disappear. It did actually start up, per a long running thread on scam.com, and spamming all over the Internet. At the present time, people who gave their checking account information to Greenzap years ago are having fraudulent withdrawals made from their checking account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.18.54 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It did not start up. People were allowed to enter their information before hand to get that $25 promotion thing. Those people were scammed. After that you got a 404 for the sign up page. The people who ran greenzap could care less if this page stays or not. At no point was anyone actually able to use greenzap for anything. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are some unconfirmed reports over the past few days that the people behind Greenzap (allegedly Damon Westmoreland) may be involved in another financial processing company that has come under scrutiny. So, the topic relates to a current issue and may be of value to researchers. Shritwod (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going with keep here. There's a fair amount of notable information in here, reliable sources for that. Seems like one of the more notable scams that happened. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, people should be warned about this kind of thing. Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Baileypalblue. The orphaned status is easily fixed, there are plenty of places it could be at least a "see also" such as List of confidence tricks and Internet fraud. SpinningSpark 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Edward Maya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable singer. Google provides nothing save a few myspace, and n/n blogs. Tagged for clean up for over two days. It's me...Sallicio! 03:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. While I would say only allowing 2 days isn't much, especially since it was over a weekend, and maybe the main editor can only use their work computer (hey, who knows), I could find absolutely nothing that could be used to flesh this article out. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 04:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability, seems to be self published on Real. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can't find any secondary coverage to show notability, delete per WP:MUSIC. FingersOnRoids♫ 21:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Armand Rousso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article is on a barely-notable person with minimal press coverage, all the content is negative, and seems to meet the definition of an article that should be deleted per our BLP policy. As a matter of disclosure, this nomination is in relation to WP:OTRS #2009021810056021. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I heard about this off-wiki. Delete it dead, it is just a scandal article without any significance in the overall scheme of an encyclopedia. Keegantalk 05:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep since a Google News search does turn up a number of significant articles over the course of a few years, about the subject as a conman, a chess impresario, etc. Bill Clinton helped introduce the guy's search engine, there was an $80 million offering...in all, I think there's enough here for a brief article--but the nominator is quite correct in saying that the article as it stands cannot stand. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I of course don't agree about his notability, but if that is the determined case I'd say delete without prejudice and allows room for a recreated article that passes BLP. Keegantalk 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. If someone comes back with an exceptionally sourced, perfectly neutral biography before this AfD closes, then I'll happily withdraw. If they don't, the article must be deleted, because "keep and cleanup" is a reckless position to take (not that you took it, Drmies (you didn't given the last line of your comment), just more suggesting that some might). Even if it's deleted, if someone writes a perfectly sourced article and plomps it on my/the closer's talk page or at DRV, it will naturally be evaluated on its merits and if it meets BLP the article can be recreated. Daniel (talk) 08:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I of course don't agree about his notability, but if that is the determined case I'd say delete without prejudice and allows room for a recreated article that passes BLP. Keegantalk 06:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The material is sourced, and it is not out fault that the NYT coverage appears negative. Some (numerous) attempts to give him a fully WP:PUFF biography have been made in the past, and the current article is far more neutral that those attempts have been. Mr. Rousso has been very well known in stamp dealing circles, and in chess circles, thus he is notable for two separate endeavors. He has been in the NYT, has been photographed with and paid Bill Clinton (the stock deal was definitely reported) so is notable for political dealings as well. Deleting everything which has been in the NYT would seem a remarkably odd way of handling a biography, no? WP is in the business of giving the pertinent information, and the wording as is is about as NPOV as possible. Collect (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's as neutral as possible, it will likely be deleted as an attack biography. That's not a very creative keep reason in an AfD centering around WP:BLP issues... Daniel (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the Talk page. A very short statement was deleted, and the only way it could remain as a fact was to make the exact NYT wording clear. The NYT article does not libel Rousso in any way, and is scrupulously worded by the NYT. BLP does not mean "absolutely nothing negative." Where the NYT deemed it an important fact to print, it is not up to us to say "Rousso gets a BLP mulligan" is it? Meanwhile, look at the article origins as pure puff. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [63] "In the court papers released last week, federal investigators alleged that Crain helped arrange the art auction and that the sale raised $40,000 for the campaign _ amounting to an illegal in-kind donation from Rousso because it exceeded the individual-contribution limits and was not reported on federal campaign reports. " (re: Torricelli investigation). So the article is nowhere near as "negative" as it might be, and BLP does not say that articles should be cleansed of all negative facts -- the fact is that the article lauds him for his foresight, and for his work in the chess world. Surely that is about all he can expect. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked the article a bit, cleaned up, reorganized, added references and templates. I believe notability has been established. Collect, your point is well taken; I never said that the guy didn't deserve to have his record listed, just that it wasn't worded very well. The note on his criminal record is slightly lengthened though I've removed some of the negative language from other parts of the article (such as the lede). Editors are welcome to rephrase that if they will; I don't care enough for the topic to do much more work on this. ;) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! There is more stuff out there, but it sems hardly worth the effort at this point. Collect (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reworked the article a bit, cleaned up, reorganized, added references and templates. I believe notability has been established. Collect, your point is well taken; I never said that the guy didn't deserve to have his record listed, just that it wasn't worded very well. The note on his criminal record is slightly lengthened though I've removed some of the negative language from other parts of the article (such as the lede). Editors are welcome to rephrase that if they will; I don't care enough for the topic to do much more work on this. ;) Enjoy, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also [63] "In the court papers released last week, federal investigators alleged that Crain helped arrange the art auction and that the sale raised $40,000 for the campaign _ amounting to an illegal in-kind donation from Rousso because it exceeded the individual-contribution limits and was not reported on federal campaign reports. " (re: Torricelli investigation). So the article is nowhere near as "negative" as it might be, and BLP does not say that articles should be cleansed of all negative facts -- the fact is that the article lauds him for his foresight, and for his work in the chess world. Surely that is about all he can expect. Collect (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See the Talk page. A very short statement was deleted, and the only way it could remain as a fact was to make the exact NYT wording clear. The NYT article does not libel Rousso in any way, and is scrupulously worded by the NYT. BLP does not mean "absolutely nothing negative." Where the NYT deemed it an important fact to print, it is not up to us to say "Rousso gets a BLP mulligan" is it? Meanwhile, look at the article origins as pure puff. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but try for a more complete article. His earlier career is merely alluded to, but there seem to be sources for it. DGG (talk) 03:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Elements of Interaction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A piece of chaotic original research, probably from the single real refernce, a dr. Wendy Guess. The rest of refs listed have no relation to the article text. - 7-bubёn >t 03:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Not only original research, but also:
Elements of Interaction Model was developed to describe the essential and critical elements that should be present in all successful, healthy interaction.
The Elements of Interaction Model, developed by Dr. Wendy Guess, is based upon the construct that there are universal aspects in common with all forms of interaction. These elements, when utilized correctly will promote healthy and successful communication between parties.
a vague and uninformative Elk Theory that is totally and irredeemably confused. "References" to general textbooks on sociology are not helpful. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Well, by wikipedia rules, Elk Theories are not speedable. - 7-bubёn >t 15:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a hoax. As far as I can tell, none of the "references" mentions either the theory or Dr. Wendy Guest. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. How did we manage to link dancing with police interrogation? I'd say this article reeks of original research, not to mention that the context is too vague to even tell me anything useful about it past a dictionary definition. Delete. Matt (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "We" actually did not. See below. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pretty far out there. Reapply when reliable sources actually mention the
theorymodel. – 74 00:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm going with synthesis of information. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a hoax, and it's not a synthesis by Wikipedia editors. Wendy Guess, also known as Wendy Guess-Hall, is a real person. According to her autobiography, at least, she has a doctorate in Dance and Health Education, and is a qualified P.E. teacher. And this is, genuinely, what she will lecture the world on, for a fee. However, there is no evidence that anyone other than her has acknowledged this idea and documented it independently of her — no evidence that the idea has escaped her and become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge. And although Guess-Hall may well be Dance Educator of the Year 2006, she claims no credentials in (to pick one example of the varied fields that this purports to link) sociology and this cannot be reasonably said to be a sociology expert speaking in xyr field of expertise. This is, currently, a one-person idea that has not been peer reviewed, accepted, and acknowledged by the rest of the world. And we exclude those. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It looks like an elk, and it quacks like an elk; therefore, it's a brontosaurus. Following the link for social dancing brought up an unexpected result, too; this is not sociology as we know it,
AnneJim. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - vague, confused and essentially meaningless. Reyk YO! 10:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS- why was this relisted? Consensus was obvious. Reyk YO! 10:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I agree that good social interaction is important this article is not very helpful since it doesn't really explain what it's all about or point us to any sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Owen Gleiberman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good (at least that's what the discussion forums used as refs say). Non-notable. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless completely rewritten. With 20 years as a film critic for a major publication, Gleiberman is notable enough for an article and should have one. However, the present article is complete garbage, focusing solely on embarassing stuff from his schoolboy days (is that even true?) and his questionable review of Epic Movie. Yes, he should have an article but this is not it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to make it easier to write a solid article. With the section about the Scary Movie review removed, the article still has enough material to live on. The only problem is that it needs some time to be referenced. (all the current refs are in the then removed section) - Mgm|(talk) 10:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Really? I thought his claim to fame was being one of the two primary film critics for one of the most widely distributed general-audience entertainment magazines in the United States for nearly two decades. On that note, I'm kinda surprised that Lisa Schwarzbaum is red-linked. Poechalkdust (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep but rewrite, edit down to basics as a prerequiste if necessary, but clearly a notable figure.Vartanza (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as a primary critic for EW. With regard to the two delete/userfy !votes above, see WP:NOEFFORT - AfD is not cleanup, and there is no deadline. —97198 (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This should be an easy keep, given his long term status as a movie critic for Entertainment Weekly. Can't say it better than Vartanza and 97198. Lisa Schwarzbaum should have an article too. Rlendog (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep yeah I agree that its a totally easy call for keeping Garynine (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sorry but "A reviewer who's claim to fame is that he said a bad movie was good," has to be about the worse rationale for nomination I've ever read, regardless of what one might have read in a ref. Owen Glieberman is a nationally read, very well known film critic. Keep per WP:SNOW. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using:{{subst:spa|username}} |
- Francis Lucille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete: Questionable notability, cited published books appear to be "self-published" with cited publication list being a "web store" on Francis Lucille's website. The article is poorly sourced and feels like pure advertisement. Plastikspork (talk) 01:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
|
---|
This is not an advertisement.
I will gather the required details and update the website. Please do not delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] This is not promotional: I have removed the link to the publications link --I have only provided the link as convenience to the readers. I have tried to provide to the audience at large genuine information that I have encountered. I will remove the ,sections that are marked with citation needed currently. Once I get the citations I will add the section accordingly. 1) http://www.stillnessspeaks.com/images/uploaded/file/Sobottka.pdf A course in consciousness, by, Stanley Sobottka ,Emeritus Professor of Physics,University of Virginia ] http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness] Has given the reference to his website www.francislucille.com This is not promotional. Please see the references to his work from other two sites. 2) Dennis Waite. The Book of One: The Spiritual Path of Advaita, ISBN 1903816416 http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/thoughts_lucille.htm I will remove the section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 05:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Reserving judgement, for now: My gut feeling is not favourable but I will wait to see if referencing and tone can be improved. The first thing I find in Google is that he is not the most famous person with "Francis Lucille" as part of their name. This makes searching harder. I am not impressed by the Stanley Sobottka endorsement (it is just a personal endorsement in a self-published essay) but there is a book with an fairly long interview with him here [64]. The introductory bio can be used to verify parts of the bio here. I don't have access to the other book to check that although an Amazon search confirms that it does cover Lucille. It seems to me that the subject is borderline for notability. I don't think that everybody who gets a namecheck in a few minor books on spirituality should automatically be considered notable. Maybe we need a bit more. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
|
---|
Thanks So much every one for taking time to give the references.I appreciate all your effort and references.
I will try to gather more information as possible. Please give me some more time. --Some of the most precious diamonds are very rare ....I understand the constaint and spirit of wikipedia too,to verify the information available. 1) The Tao of Now: Daily Wisdom from Mystics, Sages, Poets, and Saints,Page 102 Josh Baran Publisher "Hamptom roads publisher company inc." ISBN 978-157174-8842 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum [65] 2) Back to the Truth: 5000 years of Advaita by Dennis Waite (Paperback - Feb 25, 2007) [66] 3) Awake in the Heartland: The Ecstasy of What Is (Paperback) by Joan Tollifson (Author) page 96. [67] Quote --Everything is grace .When we say yes to what is ,we say yes to grace. 4) Everyday Enlightenment: Seven Stories of Awakening Sally Bongers page 21. [68] 5) The Art of Letting Go: A Pathway to Inner Freedom (Paperback) by Vidya Frazier (Author) [69] 6) Vision Walk: Asking Questions, Getting Answers, Shifting Consciousness by Brandt Morgan,page 100. ISBN-10 0976763141 ISBN-13 978-0-976763-4-7 [70] 7) I am trying my best to get more information as possible. I have found one more reference [serach for francis]--[71] "The line of advaita thinking that I have followed seems best represented by Francis Lucille. He studied advaita with Jean Klein who, in turn, had it from Krishnamenon [Sri Atmananda] and others in the 1950s. Francis Lucille may be the foremost exponent of the advaita tradition currently teaching. " 8) Here are tons of audio cds of francis lucille 2)http://openlibrary.org/a/OL3829177A Though many of them seem to be out of print. I found one --http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1882874811/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&condition=all 8)The Bhagavad Gita (The divine conversations) Alan Jacobs ;page 3. [72] 9) Being Home: Returning to the Place We've Never Left by Thomas H Beyer (Paperback - Mar 1, 2007) ISBN-10-595-42465-1 ; [73]
Just my observations on your comments. >The first thing I find in Google is that he is not the most famous person with "Francis Lucille" as part of their name. I agree ;but the topic that I am editing is related to spirituality.where the greatest are silent about their own works. and their works and contributions are realized much later. Few points: Just a search on amazon shows --that there are at least 30 books which quote the present author. In spite of it ...I am finding hard time finding self-published book by Francis ,which confirms ---In matters related to spirituality --The most powerful are very silent and this precisely why I why I am trying my best to save this article. Please feel free to modify the article ...I have quoted tons of books in the external links sections. Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC) Here is another reason to keep the article. Please refer to :http://www.ramana-maharshi.org.uk/ in Advaita vedanta ---"Ramana Maharshi" ;Please refer to the publications in Journal...a very reputed journal. "PUBLICATIONS The Journal, "SELF ENQUIRY", which was published two - four times each year by the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK between 1993 and March 2004, has now ceased publication. Contributors included Robert Adams, Ramesh Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Catherine Ingram, Francis Lucille and David Frawley, along with others among our own members." This is not a name sake magazine.it is a journal.[reply] Sprituality is very differnt from "commercial and celebrity" related articles.where more notable --are famous. Here the greatest are very silent. so please dont delete the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 18:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] here is one more reason: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Klein References "Francis Lucille" "He left an important legacy which sometimes refer teachers contemporaries who were his disciples, including Éric Baret, Francis Lucille, Jean-Marc Mantel" Amarhindustani (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] One more reference: Reference: Greg Goode, Ph.D., is editor of the Nondualism and Western Philosophers page of Nonduality Salon. Selections from his writings appear on his webpage, No Presence, No Absence. he quotes ..... Francis Lucille, a beloved teacher.... http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0013.htm Another reason why the article should not be deleted. Amarhindustani (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] One more reason: Jean Klein [[74]] is considered one of the most eloquent masters of Advaita Vedanta of the twentieth century century. Francis Lucille is the prominent disciple among them..others include Éric Baret and Jean-Marc Mantel. That is another reason ...that I have to keep this floating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
I have verified on this website and everything seems authentic. Chebard (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)— Chebard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna go with delete here. From what I see, the whole argument in favor of keeping the article relies on that, within his circles, people really like the guy, which for Wikipedia, doesn't really fit into the guidelines, unfortunately. As to the pointer that the greatest of spiritualists remain silent, I wholeheartedly agree to this assessment, but the corrolary to this is that the greatest will be made well known by the populace. I see blog entries, I see an interview, and I see some books mentioning him by name - but as I understand WP:N, that doesn't really fall within the guides. I opine, then, that we need to find more on Mr. Lucille, most certainly, and suggest that the article would be deleted - but as usual, I have no prejudice to a recreation if we have material on him found after the deletion. In the event of deletion, I suggest userfying the article for User:Amarhindustani. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctantly,
delete. This is annoying because I think it's a good faith article about a subject a new editor genuinely feels should be covered here, and I'm conscious of how bitey the AfD process can be. — The article's falling foul of various rules designed to prevent Wikipedia being used as a promotional tool (see notability in particular). Those rules oblige us to look for significant coverage in reliable sources, and they force us to delete if the coverage isn't there. I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold. I'm sorry, Amarhindustani, because I can see you've put a lot into this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
|
---|
* Retain :
The above recommendation have not taken all the points menioned before arriving at conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) 07:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC) This article has : Published interview with francis lucille in a book along with spiritual luminaries [2] This is very notable book![reply] 1)Lynn Marie Lumiere, John Lumiere-Wins.The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western Spiritual Leaders,ISBN 9781592330102 [3] 2)in Advaita vedanta ---"Ramana Maharshi" ;Please refer to the publications in Journal...a very reputed journal. "PUBLICATIONS The Journal, "SELF ENQUIRY", which was published two - four times each year by the Ramana Maharshi Foundation UK between 1993 and March 2004. Contributors included Robert Adams, Ramesh Balsekar, Douglas Harding, Catherine Ingram, Francis Lucille and David Frawley, along with others among our own members." This is not a name sake magazine.it is a journal. 3)Jean Klein [[75]] is considered one of the most eloquent masters of Advaita Vedanta of the twentieth century century. Francis Lucille is the prominent disciple among them..others include Éric Baret and Jean-Marc Mantel. Amarhindustani (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Amarhindustani, please, if you have additional information pointing to the notability of the article, add it to the article and note in here that you've added material. If this is notable, we need to know on what grounds it holds up to the notability guidelines here on Wikipedia. Please, enlighten us? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dennis, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I have strong points to support the above statement. could you let me know when you are planning to delete the article?. I just need some more time. in the mean time ,I am hoping some one else might pitch in to support me too. Thank you for the time and feedback. I appreciate it. Thanks 75.80.152.211 (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC) Amarhindustani (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion debates usually stay open for five days and the closing admin decides on the basis of the arguments put forward in the debate. However, this one has been relisted because few people took part. So you have another five days to make improvements. SpinningSpark 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep there is non-trivial coverage in multiple published books (many added since nomination) so I think this meets notability. However, the prose of the article is truly awful for a Wikipedia article. If this was written in a more detached, factual style it would probably never have been nominated here in the first place. SpinningSpark 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I vote Weak keep as well. We need to get more editors on it. It is clear that the current editor is trying to do the right thing but he needs help. He missed out on the standard Welcome message, so I have given him that, which should help a bit. Even so, we need somebody who understands this stuff (which I don't) and who is experienced with editing to work through the article issues and sort them out. Ideally, we want a shorter, more neutral and easier to understand article. I have put it in Wikiprojects Biography and Spirituality. With luck that will attract interest. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There seem to be third party sources, but no reliable sources. They all look like writings from other new age gurus, not from neutral sources.--Sloane (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. It is problematic dealing with subjects like spirituality and astrology because they are essentially just made up stuff with no canonical sources defining what is notable and what is fringe. The trouble is that some of it is clearly notable, despite being made up, due to its long history of being seriously believed in by so many people. I got as far as verifying that the book with the interview was not self-published and that the publisher is not exclusively a publisher of spiritualist books. That is what made it a weak keep for me. In my heart, I would love to see the back of all this stuff but I know that it isn't for me to impose my POV on Wikipedia. Maybe I am overcompensating here? --DanielRigal (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There seem to be third party sources, but no reliable sources. They all look like writings from other new age gurus, not from neutral sources.--Sloane (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've taken a quick pass at cleaning it a bit. To the main author I'm unclear if wp:notability has been met. Unlikely a credible source will state Lucille is the leading teacher of _____ in California but something that asserts why we should have an article on the subject needs to be pointed out quickly and in the WP:lede. Barring that we may be able to sweep a bunch of less notable bits together if they are widely quoted or something. -- Banjeboi 22:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note to the closer to say that I've gone through the article again after these edits were made, and I still feel we're short on reliable sources for the moment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
|
---|
Response to the comment made above:
>"I agree that there's significant coverage but I don't agree that the sources are over the threshold" Additional Interview from a "Third party source" Neutral publisher: 1.The Below book has interviews from worlds most influential spiritual teachers. 2.Please refer to the interview -->copernican shift: Francis Lucille Title The teachers of one : living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality / Paula Marvelly. Other Title Living advaita, conversations on the nature of non-duality Author Marvelly, Paula. Publisher London : Watkins Pub., 2002. Description xiii, 281 p. : ports. ; 24 cm. Notes Includes bibliographical references (p. 279-281). Summary A collection of interviews with the world's most influential spiritual teachers as well as less well-known teachers on the nature of non-duality. Contents All my troubles seem so far away: Satyananda -- The dharma bum: Wayne Liquorman -- The smell of burnt almonds Pratima -- The secret garden: Tony Parsons -- Copernican shift: Francis Lucille -- The house of God: Vijai Shankar -- A course in miracles: Mira -- Magical mystery tour: Bharat -- All you need is love: Catherine Ingram -- Love me tender: John de Ruiter -- Amazing grace: Pamela Wilson -- No guru, no method, no teacher: Isaac Shapiro -- The beat generation: Vartman -- San Francisco renaissance: Gangaji -- The godfather of soul: Ramesh Balsekar -- Rendezvous with Ramana -- Who am I?: Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi Amarhindustani (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Delete: The article doesn't include a single reliable source. Totally fails WP:NOTE.--Sloane (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
|
---|
*Comment
There are three very extensive interviews with Francis Lucille in books published by publications of repute [These are not just references, but full length articles]. In response to the above observation ---The article doesn't include a single reliable source. Totally fails Please consider the following facts. Jan Kersschot. THIS IS IT. Watkins ISBN: 1-84293-093-1 “Perfume of Peace” [Full length interview with Fracis Lucille]. Marvelly, Paula (2002). The teachers of Living one. London: Watkins[4]. pp. 61-71. ISBN 1842930281. Watkins Publishing[5] (est.1894) ….continues in its long tradition of unillustrated publishing, specialising in the spiritual traditions of the world, ancient wisdom, divination and philosophy. [6] “There are many engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, hence it is reliable .” This is a publishing house of repute established in 1894. • The Interview is published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses. • The Article is signed. • There is an extensive interview in this book with Francis Lucille. • The books have interviews with teachers :Gangaji[76] , Ramesh Balsekar[77] , Eckhart tolle [78] etc Who are already on wikipedia. So it puts him in equal footing. His books are published in France ,German ,Spanish etc. Books published in other languages: One of the book is published by ,publisher of repute -- http://www.originel-accarias.com You can find that this publisher has published books on other authors of repute as well ,like Dalai lama etc 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amarhindustani (talk • contribs) Amarhindustani (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see interviews and articles in Editorial reviewed Journal.[7] --- Francis Lucille. The relevance of what he speaks in other disciplines. Lucille, Francis, A Conversation with Jack Labanauskas, Part 1, Jan. ’02, Issue #79, pg. 1 [8] Lucille, Francis (interview) – Labanauskas & McKean Jan. ‘02, Feb. ’02, Nov. ‘02 Amarhindustani (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Weak keep. The article, as is, is poorly written in tone and presentation. I will assume good faith though that the subject is notable as a teacher and/or author. All the sourcing and good faith efforts need to continue however to 1. Rewrite the article neutrally and 2. Convert all sources to become inline citations so others can see clearly what is stated about this person and that it is verifiable. To Amarhindustani, you might try a little exercise where you write the article as if this person had recently died. Neutrally you would overview their life and accomplishments. Once you have that start migrating the current material together with it and add sourcing. Even if the article survives for now it will likely come back here if exponential improvements aren't made. -- Banjeboi 09:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with fire Too much link-spam, self-published sources, dubious sources from cult websites, etc... Lacking any meaningful content or reliable source to establish notability. Jwray (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Clear delete there's nothing here that even aspires to notability per our GNG and specific guidelines at WP:BIO. The "sources" are all self-interested. Eusebeus (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Categories: Spiritual teachers and Advaitin philosophers. Could some one move this to the to the categories of Spritiual Teachers.
This is not much about the person but about the teaching. Please see other teachers who are already there in WIKI. Adyashanti,Ramana Maharshi,Ramesh Balsekar etc. The request is because --The yardstick used to evalutate the notablity etc will be very different in each category. For example --the publishers in each category and number and type of people accesing this information will vary. We cannot expect the same viewership and publishers reach ,and commercial value of article written for a baseball game and fencing. Please don't compare apples to oranges.Some of the comments above by you are very valuable . sprituality is not very commercial. so finding sources and adding them takes time. in addition to that --some one is this category. may add some very valuable points and can be of great help. Thank you for all the help and suggestions. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
|
---|
*Comment
Conference given at Non profit orginization in 2003 . [9] Other speakers in the conference are all very respected in their respective fields. Amarhindustani (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every time ,I edit and discover something new . I was starting off with the word --Keep. Please count my vote as only one. where ever you find my login. Amarhindustani (talk) 05:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
- Comment - best not to keep saying keep, just append comments. Keeps the discussion from being to obfuscated. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
I agree with Jwray a lot of the sources seem self published none of the links seem to establish notability definitely not enough to have a article. Kyle1278 (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not seem to have been the subject of multiple, independant articles per WP:BIO.TheRingess (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. The cited sources are non-RS websites or books published by minor presses. The subject's own books are themselves non-notable; a worldcat search shows that Eternity Now is carried by only 1 library (in Singapore), while his other English books are not carried by any library! Typically even obscure books can be found in 10-100s of libraries; consider for example Rod Dreher, whose bio was up for a recent contentious AFD; his book Crunchy Cons is found in 3077 libraries listed on Worldcat. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
|
---|
*Comment : you are comparing the number of books and viewership of two different categories.
Please compare the same among the same category --advaita or nodualily. |
- Delete. Notable per WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability has not been established and referenced sources are of questionable meritJlrobertson (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amarhindustani's comments
|
---|
*Comment Could you please be more generic ..which of the sources are questionable and what is your criteria for your conclusion.
Thank you for the feedback. Some of the comments above have been very helpful.but some just are too generic and indicate lack of knowledge of the subject matter ,in that case my humble request to you --is to add comment but not vote . I would appreciate ,if you can be more specific. 1.About Notability and Sources: Please don't compare Apples to oranges. Please compare the article with any of the existing topics under similar category -- Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta There are not as many Readers/viewers[compared to viewership of romantic novel orviewership of baseball game] for this subject and hence you will not find big publishers. This Author’s books/references are published by Major publishers world wide ,i.e. Watkins [established 1894] Publishing; Publisher: Kamphausen[German] who also has published books of Eckhart Tolle etc, The books have been published in 4 languages --German ,French ,Spanish and English. For example --please find the references of Adyashanti or any other speaker on similar subject. you will not find big publishers as you expect for Fictional Books. Note as per Wiki --"Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary".
If you could extend the dead line for deleting the article ..I hope some more will be able to give ,constructive comments. Please give me few more days. |
Weak keep. i am not an expert, but to my view the article is kind of new. i am not aware of how things work here, but i've seen much-flawed articles lasting for years before they were improved. either delete the article now and wait for the editors to publish it back when it is more suitable for wikipedia, or let them more time. however, deleting it now might prevent the editors working together in its "unflawing." this is just my philosophy, and it may well not be endorsed by wikipedia, but at least you've got my two cents about it. Twipley (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . The publishers are reputed.and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial boards. As noted above, Francis' work has been published in many languages and is cited in many books and articles. It is an important component of the contemporary literature on advaita. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advaitastudent (talk • contribs) 00:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Advaitastudent (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep . Dear Pundits, The publishers are reputed.and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial
Francis Lucille speaks about "The Truth", "The Reality", "Our True Nature" . His teaching is associated with Non-duality, the common ground of Advaita Vedanta, Ch'an Buddhism, Zen,Taoism and Sufism, the same common ground which is at the core of the message from Sages, Saints, Jagadgurus and other prominent Advaita Teachers.The publishers are reputed and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial.
Please don't delete it, but humbly request The Pundits to point out the 'Blips' and the 'Gaps', so the Truth Seekers can come together to fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patyogi (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Patyogi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough to me, to warrant a hold, and allow the article to grow! --Ekabhishek (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:Amarhindustani has canvassed over 20 users from the spirituality project for this afd. Including User:Ekabhishek and User:Twipley who are now arguing keep.--Sloane (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I had requested help through the talk pages from users who are familiar with the subject and might help me improve the material.Many are helping me with valuable suggestions.I have pointed them to the article.To give their feedback.Some one familiar with the subject will be more helpful to guide and suggest.The objective is to improve the article.
You are most welcome too. And by the way ,those I have requested help ...many of them have tagged it as delete. what they vote is not important.I found an interesting subject and need help to improve it. PERIOD.Amarhindustani (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm seeing a few arguments here that basically state that this biographical article should be treated differently than all other biographical articles. Personally, those arguments are not compelling enough to actually treat it differently. It's my understanding that we have notability guidelines for several reasons but primarily to guarantee that all information in the article is backed up by reliable sources. If several reliable sources are added that talk about the subject (in the body of the article, not in the EL section) then I would change my mind. This debate is scheduled to last several more days, that should be plenty of time to add those secondary sources. I've gone ahead and removed most of the material that to my eyes, constituted original research and unverifiable claims so it reads less like an advert (reading like an advertisement is not grounds for deletion but improvement). I know the author of the article has put some hard work into the article, but it also takes a lot of hard work to become familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and processes and the reasons why those guidelines and processes exist.TheRingess (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks so much ...I appreciate all your help.Yes,As per your suggestions I will add some more sourcing.
I was of the impression that the article will be deleted in 5 days. That was the hurry. if we have few more days .. I will read about the rules in detail. Amarhindustani (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Th
- Comment Regardless of how much time is left, perhaps more attention to the article and less canvassing of fellow editors. It should be a matter of hours or minutes, not days, to include the references from 3rd party reliable sources. Adding articles to Wikipedia is not always easy, but always rewarding.TheRingess (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you.There were too many rules and terminologies and it was going in circles..after some time ,I gave up.
As I was under the impression that the article would be deleted. But I did find some articles to illustrate what you have suggested. but ,still there are too may words.it seems as though ,I am fighting a case in court.Too overwhelming,and drowned in words :-) Amarhindustani (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Respectfully, from just my viewpoint, you are probably feeling overwhelmed, because instead of reading the guidelines that fellow human beings were pointing you towards, and thus putting forth the effort to address their concerns, you expended too much effort canvassing other editors, perhaps calling friends to ask them to contribute to this discussion, and arguing that essentially this article should be treated differently. That's a lot of effort to go to, and would probably exhaust anybody. As I mentioned, your efforts would have (and still can) be better spent addressing the concerns raised during this discussion (just a fellow human beings opinion which in no way reflects Wikipedia policy). The article will be deleted at the end of the discussion period, when an impartial admin reviews the discussion and makes a decision as whether or not consensus is to keep or delete. In other words, it's not over until it's over. Take care.TheRingess (talk) 04:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Point Taken.BTW,Only today ,I have requested others to help me out as I thought today was the last day to save the article,otherwise it might be deleted:-).I will take a closer look at all the information.Thanks Amarhindustani (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep . The publishers are reputed and the Journals are reputed and reviewed by editorial board. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishvs (talk • contribs) 03:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC) — Mishvs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete . This would be in line with the decision made about the arguably more notable self published Stephen Knapp Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Knapp, Stephen Knapp was deleted despite being referenced over 50 times on Wikipedia, whereas Francis Lucille is only referenced in user pages. - Q Chris (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way someone put a rather biased plea to vote to keep the article on my user talk, with implications that whoever wanted it deleated "didn't understand spirituality". I expect that they have canvased many others in a similar fassion. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article's changed a lot since I last read it, and I notice that more than half the article now consists of citations and sources. I'm going to change my recommendation to userfy (which means that the article no longer appears in the main Wikipedia space, but it's still on Wikipedia in an unindexed space that's set aside for Amarhindustani, so that he can continue to work on it without pressure of deadlines and bring it back to a deletion review when he's made it ready in his own time.)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete here - I like the suggestion above of move somewhere else, perhaps his own sandbox where he can work on it with help from those inputting here. I have my doubts that he will be able to establish notability. Francis may be a great guy and notable but he has not done much to get notability it appears. One must sometimes toot one's own horn to be heard or have someone else doing it but not via Wikipedia. Will help on sandbox effortJlrobertson (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
I am trying to consolidate all the points suggested and planning to address them,one by one,just few more days will of great help.The material has sources,and I hope that some one stumbling on the article may pitch in too.There are tons of references in print media and comparatively not as much on-line-That adds to the delay.if you delete the article immediately then the chances to bring it back will be remote.Just my 2 cents. Your call.Amarhindustani (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It seems very fishy to me that the majority of keep votes are from brand new WP:SPA accounts which appear to be created for the sole purpose of voting: Advaitastudent (contribs), Patyogi (contribs), Mishvs (contribs). Checking the logs there are two others whos votes were deleted (due to the fact that the were verbatim copies of one another?): Advaitalover (contribs) and Mvs 82 (contribs). At the very least it smells like WP:MEAT, and at worst it looks like WP:SOCK. Plastikspork (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let me clarify on this. I did ask for some help yesterday from editors and some of my friends ,as I was under the impression that the article will be deleted after 5 days,I wanted some help.
Some of them might have stumbled on this site. Those I have asked for help was only with the intention of asking them to cite any sources that they know in addition to the ones that I have already mentioned. As clearly mentioned at the page ,it is not about popular vote. so if any one just votes it can be neglected.Please see my comments above on 19 March 2009 to be precise --04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC) on ,I have clearly mentioned this.I am consolidating all the points and suggestions given above and will modify accordingly.Thank youAmarhindustani (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ok since I find that there are few visits to this site ,I would like to consolidate the points mentioned above.so that some one might be able to address one or all of these. I need viewpoints and suggestions [backed up by very logical reason and supporting evidence) .
- a) Link Spam ?
- b) Self Published Sources ?
- c) The use of "cult" websites. ?
- d) Promotional Nature of Article ?
- e) "Significant coverage' in 'reliable sources" ?
- f) "Not the most famous person with Francis Lucille in their name ?
- g) Notability not met by "a namecheck in a few minor books on spirituality. ?
- h) "Something that asserts why we should have an article on the subject needs to be pointed out quickly." ?
- i) "Publication List being a "web store" on Francis Lucille's website. ?
- (j) Most all of these issues relate to tone, notability and verifiability. ?
- (k)Is the current tone acceptable?
- (l) Publications are minor?
Most of thes were addressed,but I would like to know how may of the above are still open and need to be addressed.
Just as a brief note: Notability and verifiability have clear criteria:
- 1)Significant coverage is deemed to be more than trivial but less than exclusive."
- 2)From "reliable sources" :
- a) Third Party published material
- b) Secondary Sources
- c) Peer Reviewed Journals
- d) University Textbooks
- e) Magazines, Journals and Books "published by respected publishing houses"
- f) Mainstream Newspapers
- g) Independent from subject.
Please give me your comments and supporting evidence. Amarhindustani (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will be adding these to the main section shortly.but wanted to bring these to your attention.
- I have additional factual material for inclusion [Need some more time to include it in main section]:
- 1) Book: Jan Kersschot, This Is It: Dialogues on The Nature of Oneness, London, Watkins Publishing. pp180-189, "Perfume of Peace", Interview with Francis Lucille; pp219-223, "Revelation of The Divine Hand", Second Interview with Francis Lucille. Complete chapters dedicated to Francis Lucille
I won't presume as to which section these should be listed in but, it is critical to point to the other authors interviewed in this third party published book include Eckhart Tolle,U.G. Krishnamurti, and Douglas Harding, contemporary teachers with current listings in Wikipedia. This addresses Item b ( Self Published), Item C ( Cult Websites, as other interviewees are in Wikipedia), Item g ( notability/namecheck). Table of contents available at [10]
- 2)It should be noted that Paula Marvelley's book, The Teachers of One:Living Advaita has a complete chapter on Francis Lucille, entitled "Copernican Shift." This cite addresses Item b (self published), Item c ("cult websites"), and Item g (notability/namecheck) above.
Of note: Gangaji and Ramesh Balsekar, both non dual teachers listed in Wikipedia are other interviewees in this book.
- 3)Also, the complete list of "namecheck" references for The Book of One, by Dennis Waite, . They are pp 31, 110, 165, 169, 188, 201, 206, 240, 248. This addresses the "namecheck" comment, Item G above.
The Awakening West: Conversations with Today's New Western Spiritual Leaders by Lynne Marie Lumiere.
- 4.It is important to notice Wikipedia regarding the "third party
book publishers" who have published Francis Lucille in France and Germany. Both are independent publishers. The Publisher for Germany is J.Kamphausen/ Mediengruppe, which has an entire book line covering Advaita, including the German translations of "Silence of The Heart" by Robert Adams, "I am That" by Maharaj Nisargadatta, and many more. The website is here:[11] Similarly, the French publisher is Originel-accarias, the pre-eminent publisher of non duality books in that country. A list of authors is here:[12] including Wikipedia authors Douglas Harding and Osho and P.D. Ouspensky,Papaji (Poonja H.W.L) and Ramana Maharshi.
- 5)Francis Lucille is listed as an author of 3 millenaire, a leading peer reviewed online journal on Non Duality in France along with other Wikipedia authors like Ken Wilbur, Byron Katie, Douglas Harding and Andrew Cohen.
Website listing of authors:[13] Further, nondualite.free.fr is another peer reviewed website with work included by Francis Lucille, Ramesh Balsakar, and Jiddu Krishnamurti, all listed in Wikipedia.
- 6)All of these third party sources are relevant in that they address the criticism regarding notability and verifiable sources.Amarhindustani (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can some one point me to any one article currently on WIKI which you think meets all the above criterion.
Under the same category, of course -Spiritual teachers | Advaitin philosophers | New Thought writers | New Thought movement | Vedanta. So that I can use that as reference to shape my article.Amarhindustani (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent, non-trivial coverage by reliable sources at all about this spiritualist. Works self-published, and no other indications of wide fame, acclaim or infamy. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not advertising.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 03:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rory James MacLaren-Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
have added details of rory's youth enterprise training in schools. --Trialfinder (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have added references and citations for different area of rory's activities. Note, as stated in article he writes under his middle names 'Rory James', so I have added the link to his book 'Dude, Where's My Career?' on Amazon.co.uk and some additional articles and interviews. --Trialfinder (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC) — Trialfinder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Still doesn't indicate notability. No significant coverage. See WP:N LetsdrinkTea 20:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears not to be notable, I was unable to find any relevant hits on google and no reliable sources either. LetsdrinkTea 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not enough independent coverage to establish notability.Nrswanson (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. MBisanz talk 03:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SolarMagic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pulled from db-spam queue. Tone is not overly promotional, but since this is a product that is scheduled for a May release, notability is in doubt (but not completely out of the question). {{db-inc}}
doesn't fit, so taking to AfD. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article doesn't look spammy to me. The article already contains one reliable source writing about the technology. [79], [80], [81] amongst many more would indicate that many have taken note of this technology. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. This page has four third-party, independent references, three of which are linked, and the subject matter is clearly now being referenced and discussed in vertical media. A Wikipedia entry that is factually-based and objective, as I believe this is, is entirely appropriate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naracsuah (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC) — Naracsuah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Seems well referenced enough, with independent sources DGG (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like this is a article from a new editor. What is needs is a rewrite though. --Numyht (talk) 15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the exact same article as Power optimizer. Also it's not the only kind of power optimizer, there's also this kind: Power optimization (EDA). Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is a lot of overlap between the SolarMagic article and the Power optimizer article. General material related to power optimization should be removed from the SolarMagic article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Power optimizer article mentions only one manufacturer, National Semiconductor, who make this one. If that really is the case, and I would imagine that National have the patents sewn up, there does not seem any point in having a separate SolarMagic article. SpinningSpark 18:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article Power optimization (EDA) mentioned above is a design process, not an electronic device and is completely unrelated. SpinningSpark 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Marijan Dong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Look very unrealistics, should be a fake player.Frankie goh (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's a curious one: he's not on the roster of the club to which he is supposed to be attached or—if our article is to be believed—the roster of the U-19 national team; at the very least, one does not find any sources that go toward either association (a cursory Googling does reveal, though, that the existence of the player has been questioned on three separate soccer messages boards, Dong's not having been heard of other than via Wikipedia by fans of Singapore football, fans of Korean football, or followers of Serbian youth football). One imagines that a player who took up with OFK Beograd aged just two years would receive juuust a bit of coverage, and the complete absence thereof disposes one to concluding that this is a hoax. Joe 07:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. —94.196.76.190 (talk) 07:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Joe as obvious hoax. We don't need any more people making fun of Wikipedia. Admiral Norton (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:HOAX and, by extension, lack of sources to indicate existence. Jd027talk 18:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not listed on FC Seoul official site as a player. Presumably they can be trusted to know who plays for them. SpinningSpark 18:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete hoax. --Dweller (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. GiantSnowman 12:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ Nomination withdrawn because article review can only affirm consensus of AfD discussion, rather than discuss new merits of discussion, please see AfD Review logs
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eckhart_Tolle
- ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jBLUI0oS794C&pg=PA29&dq=%22Francis+Lucille%22#PPA5,M1
- ^ http://www.dbponline.co.uk/book_preview.asp?b_id=70
- ^ http://www.dbponline.co.uk/book_preview.asp?b_id=70
- ^ http://www.dbponline.co.uk/WebFiles/watkins_catalogue.pdf
- ^ http://www.ennea.org/what.html
- ^ http://www.ennea.org/articles/EM_author_index.pdf
- ^ "Inner Directions [Non Profit Organization] Conference,2003" (PDF). p. 44.
- ^ www.thirdmg.com
- ^ http://weltinnenraum.de/oxid.php/cl/alist/cnid/spirituelle-tradition-advaita/pgNr/3
- ^ http://www.originel-accarias.com/Edition/auteurs.html
- ^ http://www.revue3emillenaire.com/contacts/contacts.php?menu=contacts&page=liens_auteurs