![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ludovico technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This "technique" seems to have no real "notability" outside of the novel (and film adaption). It's present one of the most famous scenes of a very famous movie, but it's still not relevant by itself, in a sense that make us make an article for it. The article is full of original search (the only reference is the original novel itself) and unsourced trivia. damiens.rf 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Clockwork Orange. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While my gut instinct is to agree with the merge, clicking on the Google Books link takes me to plenty of relevant, non-trivial, independent sources. While the current article may stink, it's clear that there's enough information to make a reasonable article out of it. Since I don't have time to add this myself, I'll probably tag it for rescue. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My reasoning is a little experimental— and evolving— but this is how I am thinking:
- As a user, if I know I am looking for something that I know's a thing, I often prefer to find that thing in it's own article (reassures me that my recollection that the thing's a thing is valid). Take that for whatever it's worth. =)
- As someone thinking about culture, I tend to see topics as part of a cultural tissue. In this sense, the items found in the section In popular culture represents the indepedent connectivity of that tissue to the rest of the culture. Anchoring that to a name and details is what an encyclopedia topic does. The connectivity confers notability, the specificity of that connectivity (the iconic image, the various references) confers independent notability.
- As an editor, I see that independent connectivity, and think, yeah, this may need it's own IPC section, so the topic may have some structure that shouldn't necessarily embed in a larger article.
- As a Wikipedian, I tend to think that if all the article did was allow one to refer to such an image as something more specific than, "...that Clockwork Orange scene with the guy strapped in front of a television or whatever with hooks pulling his eyes open...", if all the article accomplished was to make such a sentence easier to say, it has pulled its weight as an independent topic. Why? Consider the number of people who would get and are somewhat likely to hear something like, "...that Clockwork Orange scene, etc....". Those people deserve the focus such an article provides. They are, in a sense, a constituency.
- Keep Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This is mentioned enough in popular media as well as news results, to get people wondering if its real or not. Google news archive has 64 results until I remove anyone that mentions Clockwork, and then it drops to 30. Google Book search shows it in 481 books. Removing any that mention the wore mentions of "Clockwork Orange" and it drops to about 100 [1]. Some of those other results mentioning the film which the technique was first introduced in, might still be valid and not just talking about things in the context of the film. Dream Focus 12:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The technique is referenced in numerous books and so our editing policy indicates we should retain this. It might be sensible to merge into some other article such as Clockwork Orange or aversion therapy but it's hard to choose between them and such action is not achieved by deletion. Warden (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rewrite from scratch. There appear to be sufficient solid third-party discussion of this fictional device (e.g. in Karolides, Nicholas (1993). Censored Books. Metuchen: Scarecrow Press. ISBN 0810826674. and Nelson, Thomas (2000). Kubrick, inside a Film Artist's Maze. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. ISBN 0253213908.) that there is no reason whatsoever to leave this article as a mere primary-/un-sourced lead and a crappy {{inpopularculture}} list. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Odds are, a rewrite from scratch would make it better. A more modest target might be just to replace the bit describing how the technique is "classical conditioning", etc, which arguably strays into OR/SYNTH. -SM 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Clockwork Orange: The fictional therapy appears to have several mentions in reliable third-party and secondary sources, but I do not believe that there is enough coverage outside of trivial mentions to extract content about the specific technique without using original research. Since the current content is mostly original research or unreferenced, I believe that a merge is the best option at this point until the content is supported by the appropriate references and can be split from the main article. Jfgslo (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Australian Standard 2243.2: 2006 Safety in Laboratories - Chemical Aspects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article describing an obscure dangerous materials handling standard does not appear to be on a notable topic and is written as a how-to guide. As such, it fails WP:N and WP:NOTHOW. The article seems to have been one of a series of articles on similar obscure topics created as part of an university project - this has been discussed at: WP:AWNB#New articles on the handling of dangerous materials. I nominated this article for prod deletion, but this was disputed. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete nom makes strong arguments how this does not meet notability. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and notability guidelines. The category of standards might be notable enough for a section in some umbrella article, but this one by itself doesn't pass muster. LordVetinari (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep relevant almanac type information, and that's one of the purposes of the encyclopedia , though probably could be significantly shortened. Not the least trivial or obscure--such regulations are a major part of any laboratory activity. We need similar ones for other countries. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and this info is easily found on the relevant standards website. Not to mention that this is WP:COPYVIO and WP:NOTHOWTO. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | email) 23:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a regulatory handbook. Barring substantial media coverage of this particular law, it doesn't belong. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- it's not even a law, it's a standard that is not legally enforcable. LibStar (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even more reason to be rid of it, then. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails notability guidelines - it's a highly obscure Australian standard that has never been covered in reliable secondary sources. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 08:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mount Barker earthquake, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability...We don't need an article for every earthquake, especially those that do not cause casualties and more especially if they attained only 3.8 on the Richter scale. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in addition that it is really poorly written and not even according to Wikipedia standards, this is not an earthquake which either received mass media coverage, nor any casualties. I say, get rid of it. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Even if sourced, this is a clear case of NOTNEWS. The earthquake (if it happened) had no encyclopedic consequences whatsoever. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not every earthquake merits its own article.and there is no long standing notability as per WP:EFFECT. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - not sufficiently notable to attract independent attention or coverage. 3.8 isn't terribly significant, and some parts of Australia record that sort of thing regularly anyway. Orderinchaos 04:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shannon Letandre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable filmmaker. No evidence, internally or through google searches, that there exists enough extensive and independent reliable sources to meet the minimum article inclusion standards as laid out at Wikipedia:Notability. I'd be perfectly willing to be proven wrong if someone can provide sources which are reliable, extensive, and independent. Jayron32 22:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Per G7, Author requested deletion here. There has been no significant improvements from other editors than the author. This diff shows the article in its current state compared to that of the original author. Almost all changes are refs. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per G7 and failure to assert notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- explanation - I declined the G7 because I feel that the adding of references certainly does constitute significant editing by others, and thus as a procedural thing made a G7 inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trailer trash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dictionary term, one ref (to a dictionary), and some wiki links to songs, tv shows, and movies. In interest of full disclosure, part of my ethnic background is PWT, so I'm familiar with the topic. Seems of little value to us here, probably be best if this were transwikied. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Familiarity breeds contempt. In fact, the topic is notable; for example, see "Trailer Park Trash": News, Ideology, and Depictions of the American Underclass. and so should be kept for further development per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I agree that the article is likely to tend towards DICDEF, but there's no reason, in theory, why it should; the concept is notable and has been covered in decent sources. ╟─TreasuryTag►Alþingi─╢ 22:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Warden, this is imperfect, but there's no reason it couldn't be a good article, it just isn't yet. Meelar (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep very common phrase, even though mostly a derogatory slur (i think we dont document every minor slur/slang phrase), lots of ghits in books, scholar. it currently looks like a dicdef, but could easily be expanded.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Pejorative terms are magnets for vandals and don't add anything. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't delete articles just because they're likely to attract vandalism. Otherwise it's bye-bye Barack Obama and Tony Blair f'rinstance. The question is whether or not it meets our notability standard. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 14:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google books and scholar searches show sufficient sources to meet notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. We have articles on other pejorative terms. This does seem like a waste of effort though when there are so many core articles lacking.TCO (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rucker Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed by author of article. Article is a neologism, and the only "source" for the term is a message board. No other reliable sources can be found. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was the original prodder. The nominator sums it up well. LadyofShalott 21:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:SNOW closed, this seemed to pass WP:SPEEDY. John (talk) 04:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whinge wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. non-notable, made-up game. Google search doesn't find anything describing this paper-based game (other than the original source website). Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In this edit, OP admits that there exists no source to establish notability, thus making this article a likely candidate for speedy deletion. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per nom. Island Monkey talk the talk 17:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could find no reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obviously non-notable, no references at all etc. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 15:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI [2] is basically a call to arms to come here and save the article from the WikiNerds™. So far nobody appears to have acted on it.. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cn not find any reliable sources to establish notability. GB fan (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD: A10 as duplication of Porphyria (Assuming good faith). -- Selket Talk 21:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pyphoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe the creator, who has few other contributions to his/her name, may have misspelled "porphyria". A quick Google search shows no legitimate mentions of this term in the literature. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and agree that creator's problem is a good-faith misspelling. I'm not sure if medical conditions fall under a CSD category. It's an unusual enough misspelling that I don't think it would be useful as a redirect. --NellieBly (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Edit to add: I think it might qualify under G6. So tagged. --NellieBly (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Edwin Falcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Falcon fails Wikipedia:MLB/N, as he played only three years in the Minor Leagues, and never rose above Single-A. Adam Penale (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Fails WP:NSPORTS, and a Google News Archive search revealed nothing proving that this player meets WP:GNG. There were some trivial mentions, but I couldn't find any substantial coverage on him. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Adam Penale (talk) 12:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Silent Minority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability; No reliable sources documenting the film. The film clearly exists, and it seems as if it may be notable, but I've been unable to confirm that with sources. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom.— Jess· Δ♥ 01:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per comments below. Article has been expanded substantially. I'm still not comfortable with the quality of sources provided, some of which were printed only immediately surrounding the film's broadcast, and others being either questionable or mere mentions. However, I think it has a shot of improving, and would like to see it have an opportunity to. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is cited in scholarly books and journals as can be confirmed by a simple search on Google Scholar or Google Books. References are added to the article. Govynn (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete merely proving it exists doesn't establish notability. Significant coverage by reliable third party sources would do that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom.Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep The hansard reference in very convincing. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Veering towardsKeep. It certainly need work, but there are signs of notability out there to pursue, although access to contemporary sources would be helpful. The controversy about the programme made into the British Parliament with questions in the House (Hansard extract) and if anyone has access to the Times website (or can tunnel through the paywall), it was mentioned in an article by Brian Rix on 2 June last. (The title of the article was "Britain is shamed by the cruelty at Winterbourne View"). The fact that this documentary is being discussed 30 years later (almost to the day), while of course connected to a recent Panorama documentary, is in itself a reason to expect that there are sources out there. It goes without saying of course that they would need to be added. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd fully agree with you, if those sources can be found. I've been unable to track any down, however. — Jess· Δ♥ 03:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mentioned" in an article and being discussed because the topic came up wouldn't sway my !vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One need only look to see that the article in Glasgow Herald is far more than a "mention", as it deals with the film and its controversy directly and in detail.[3] Where there's one 1981 article about a controversial documentary, there are more . Just takes looking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And looking it was not that difficult to find Yorkshire Post,[4] [5] [6] Just sayin... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and continue improvements to the sourced and expanded article. As the documentary has indeed received critical commentary and discussion in reliable sources independent of the subject, it meets the requirements set in WP:NF. The unsourced new article that was first nominated has been expanded and sourced since that nomination. We do not toss what can be so easily fixed simply because it might have started in bad shape. Deleting improvable content does not serve the project. Actually improving something does. I would ask the nominator and delete !voters to now consider a withdrawal as his initial concerns have been addressed... with Kudos to User:Govynn and User:Flowerpotman. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Amended my (not a) vote to Keep above, per improvements. Something else that seems to be true but needs sources is that it won a Royal Television Society Award in 1981. This needs sources; a lot of non-RS pages saying it is not enough; the RTS site is a bit weak when it comes to awards prior to the start of the World Wide Web but it does have has a list of winners. However.... they have goofed in the list (available via this link or this direct link to the pdf file in what looks to be a classic auto-complete blunder, and called it "Silent Majority". An RTS award would be considered a major award. Looking for sources for that now. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 14:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a nationally broadcast documentary that has received sufficient third party coverage, plus the award just mentioned above, it would seem. And I agree with Michael regarding the wisdom and value of nominating an article such as this for deletion when even the nominator observes that "it seems as if it may be notable" and the main difficulty is finding sources -- sources which seem to have been supplied rather easily by other editors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My having some vague suspicion that the topic may be notable is not any reason to keep an unsourced stub around, particularly when the only thing I can dredge up on the topic is a short and obscure mention in a QS. That said, it looks like the article has been expanded with sources substantially since its nomination, which is good. I'm dubious about the quality of those sources, but if the article continues to improve, I think it has a chance of eventually being higher quality. As such, I'm willing to amend my vote. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as creator. As someone earlier kinda-sorta guessed this came into the spotlight again after a recent panorma documentry and it was clearly notable from unreliable sources - reliable sources are quite hard for me to find without access to Lexis etc, more than I thought when I started the article, but I see others have put a start to it. Egg Centric 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Utterly fantastic documentary, well worth watching for da lulz. 78.105.71.57 (talk) 17:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note—the above comment was made by a trolling IP which was blocked minutes later. ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 17:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re IP - see also: User_talk:NawlinWiki#H.Ross Meatpuppet Egg Centric 19:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note—the above comment was made by a trolling IP which was blocked minutes later. ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 17:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure Edgepedia (talk) 12:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sniggle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod for a non-notable protologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary; there is no place for this here. LadyofShalott 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Talk:Sniggle there was a VfD discussion at one point in time.
I'll see if I can track down the proper link.LadyofShalott 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Well, it appears that is the link. The talk page is it. LadyofShalott 20:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Talk:Sniggle there was a VfD discussion at one point in time.
DeleteKeep. Sniggling for eels is already at Wiktionary. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep, as an article on eel-catching, per references added by Warden. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The work sniggle is used in EJ Poostay - The Reading Teacher, 1984 - JSTOR, [URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/20198630] Google Scholar gives:
Show me your underlines: A strategy to teach comprehension
EJ Poostay - The Reading Teacher, 1984 - JSTOR ... 123-26,163. Jabberboxy 'Twas August, and the impen swarms Did twitch and sniggle in the slats; All permy were the posimarms And full of intra-chats. ... And will he end up on the rocks, Or will he sup?rate?" Tis May now, and the impen swarms Still twitch and sniggle in the slats. ... Cited by 2 - Related articles - All 2 versions
However, it must be said that this article needs some work to ensure that sniggle is described in the way the above source (or other reliable references using the word sniggle) do.
Govynn (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is notable and so should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability involves significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article currently appears to lack such things. Do you have anything more? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now contains several such sources. Perhaps you need to refresh your browser cache. Warden (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding that. I don't see why you think my browser cache ought to have contained at 17:43 a reference you added at 18:22, though. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability involves significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article currently appears to lack such things. Do you have anything more? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw the nomination. Well done, Colonel. LadyofShalott 19:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- James robert nolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Author contested WP:PROD. No substantiate claims of notability. Article reads like a CV, and so goes against WP:NOTCV. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced BLP of an individual without proven notability per WP:BLP. Yet another reason why that policy is so important: without references to reliable third parties, there's no way to prove that the James Robert Nolan who is the subject of this article is the same James Robert Nolan who filed those patents. --NellieBly (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - inventors must be notable generally, or meet the "prof test". Bearian (talk) 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The author seems to have consented to the deletion. Does that qualify for WP:CSD#G7? — Fly by Night (talk) 19:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article reads sort of like a resume, and I can't really see how the person is notable. Steven Walling 04:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per Wikipedia guidelines. I didn't any hits on the "James Robert Nolan" on both Yahoo and Google. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion Information
|
---|
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Konstantin Chaykin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete - The only refs on here are unreliable and a quick Google search comes up with nothing reliable. Island Monkey talk the talk 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it appears to be a means of advertising. --Doug Coldwell talk 12:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No delete - It is not a mean of advertising. Most of the notes added are from specialized publications from different countries. Other watchmakers have already their article, see for example George Daniels (watchmaker). Jafd88 talk 13:55 GMT, 16 june 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Deleteadvert. Reichsfürst (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been "cleaned" to meet Wikipedia standards.
- Comment - No it hasn't. Island Monkey talk the talk 16:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the writing is indeed poor and advert-like, there is plenty of coverage of this person in Russian-language sources. See, for example, the external links section in the Russian Wikipedia article, or this English-language publication.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 17, 2011; 19:20 (UTC)
- Keep. While if you look on the germany website, there are many exemples from germany artikles too. If you look some more in internet, you can finde many english artikles about this master too. If you want, I can send you some of that. And it is a member of an international academy of the clock- and watchmmakers: [7] Nadja Chaykina (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Nadja. There are a lot of information about this person and his creations on the internet in different languages; Russian, English, Spanish, French, Italian, etc. On the other hand, in the Wikipedia article there is a reference from the "Horological Journal", an independent and reliable magazine from the reputed British Horological Institute. Pedro (Spain).
- Wow...isn't that
notweird? Two newbies voting on an AfD consecutively? I smell SOCKS!!!! Island Monkey talk the talk 16:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a new artikle in a very respectably journal: [8] --Nadja Chaykina (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "newbies"? sorry, but I find it some discriminating. I thought, all can help there... And I have some artikles, but in other languages--Nadja Chaykina (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuart Antony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a subject who fails WP:NACTOR. No reliable sources in the article to prove notability of the subject (own web site, IMDB and UKScreen.com). Could not find any other reliable source, all are potentially WP:USERGENERATED.
There are two users who edit, both have no other interests. A speedy has been declined. Has been deleted four times (all CSDs) in the last four years. Re-created one day after the last deletion. Ben Ben (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Ben Ben (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is NO footage of Stuart anywhere on YouTube. No mention of show reels and no evidence of him appearing in anything listed. This entry should therefore be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.79.79 (talk) 05:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no reliable third party sourcesSean (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Toot It & Boot It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NSONG. noq (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as it is a song without reliable third-party coverage. Logan Talk Contributions 03:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Triple Crown (beauty pageants) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable term. Seems to be original research. Previous afd closed as keep after the article creator promising to add sources and two other editors "trusting" him to do so. The sources - that we're never added to the article - do not support the fact that this is an established term in use in publications. damiens.rf 18:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I haven't been able to find any reliable independent sources that say that winning state pageants in the Miss Teen USA, Miss USA, and Miss America pageants is called the "Triple Crown". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Sources that saved the article in the last AfD offer only passing mentions of the term, and - to me - are weak indicators of notability. I Googled several of the pageant winners who've achieved this title and most results that use the term seem only to do so because the creator of this "Triple Crown" page made sure to stick the term in the leads of the applicable pageant winner Wiki articles to make it look notable and accepted when it's not. Mbinebri talk ← 00:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Odd Future Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mixtape that fails WP:NALBUM. Though there are listings on both Billboard and AMG, neither has a review of this album, and the album has never charted. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The review and Discogs link are added. L Trey (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep whilst I'm not really a fan, this band is really popular with many young people. the recent Australian tours had large crowds and there was a lot of debate over the band. I'll search for some articles. I noticed pitchfork is already in the references - don't you consider them a RS? as I understand it, this band has become wildly popular without major media press coverage - they've used download sites and their blog and word of mouth. it's one of the modern success stories (or perhaps a return to the old days pre-PR / pay for coverage media?). so I'm not sure there'll be much coverage of this tape, but in future I think people will look back and say it was one of the most successful to use this model. in this modern world. this is the main reason I'll work on this article and try find some sources Kathodonnell (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some reviews/articles on Pitchfork, XXL Magazine, LA Weekly. and some blogs/music sites. I've added them as inline refs to the article. (also moved the reviews from infobox to "Reception" section as per infobox page). so, yes, my decision is keep for this article Kathodonnell (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not an over-abundance of coverage but a significant release from a notable group with some coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Already deleted by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don Antonio Juan Schotvanger de Borbón y Escansany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable individual. Somebody trying to pass himself off as a Spanish duke. Every hit is Wiki or a mirror. Kauffner (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked a Spanish nobility site here and nothing shows up. Kauffner (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-verifiable, possibly hoax. Zero hits on Google News, Books, Scholar; 7 on Web. Not notable. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This article no longer even contains a claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Homoud Nasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find sufficient RS coverage reflecting notability of this singer. Others are welcome to try. Epeefleche (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've searched Google and Yahoo! and didn't find any reliable results. A Facebook page and an official website isn't enough to hold this article notable. SwisterTwister (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jauqo III-X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An electric bass guitar player. Created a 15 string bass guitar which has a reference that goes to a forum page. Found one self-released album from 2005. Can't find anything else to make him notable. Bgwhite (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BAND.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of sources. I didn't get any hits on both Google and Yahoo! except for the official website and other non-notable websites. SwisterTwister (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Edward Campusano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league player who never rose above AA and hasn't played since 2009. Dewelar (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Even a player from a youth team would be more notable than this. Island Monkey talk the talk 17:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on why a player who has been on a major league roster is less notable than a youth player? Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wondered that myself... -Dewelar (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It appears he survived the first AFD because one commenter thought that minor league play was good enough and another thought that spring training was enough. Matchups 03:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already deleted by another admin. -- Cirt (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Asareh shayegan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently an autobiography of a musician. No independent reliable sources listed in article. No independent reliable sources found when searching. Does not yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. COI as created by user name Asareh shayegan (same as the article name) and unsourced BLP , and notability Bentogoa (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those is a speedy deletion criterion, though notability comes close to CSD A7. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No notability or reliable sources. Starionwolf (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I searched Google and Yahoo! and came back with zero results. At least, there would be one source (a website at least) to confirm this person exists. SwisterTwister (talk) 06:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It looks like the subject wrote an autobiographical stub before finding out about notability standards. The Farsi article on the same subject is up for speedy deletion, which I think could have been done here too.Bjones (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: autobiographical without notability.--Bersam (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As unverifiable in reliable sources. Sandstein 19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thiemassassians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No verifiable sources. Google searches produce (1) several Wikipedia articles, all of which have been edited by the author of this article, and all or all but one of which owe the mention of Thiemassassians to that author (the one possible exception had the mention inserted by an anonymous IP editor); (2) Wikipedia mirrors; (3) blogs, forums, facebook, and other unreliable sources. There seems to be no verifiable coverage of this in reliable sources. An editor has suggested that this may be a hoax, but if it isn't then it is certainly non-notable and probably "original research". Google scholar produces nothing at all relating to this, which is surprising. (PROD was removed without comment anonymously.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Historical and archaelogical evidence has been provided. I refer the reader to the sources section.Tamsier (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There does not appear to be anywhere that actually uses the term Thiemassassians. noq (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those who are calling for it to be deleted should perhaps google the word "Thiemassas". Although a lot is not available on google, there are indeed reliable sources and they provide direct link to Serer history and people. Just because something is not visible in Google/ in huge numbers, does not mean it is false. I call for this article to be Accepted and time permitting, for this article to be developed and given the merit it deserves just like any article on Wiki. Tamsier (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just did. Of the 6 results returned, 1 is to the Wikipedia article. 2 seem to be duplicates of each other, 2 are bad links. So that leaves 2 hits. Both of those hits mention the word but not in the context that the Wikipeia article uses it. noq (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per Noq. Doublechecking Ghits, the term does not appear to be used by anyone. Edward321 (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant claims of notability, other than existence. References are all primary sources. No significant coverage found from independent publications. MikeWazowski (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is there significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources? If so it should be noted here and/or added to the article before the seven day AFD period is over. Nothing shown in the article satisfies WP:ORG, the applicable notability standard. Wikipedia is not a directory of every business.Edison (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 13:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An old and established but utterly unremarkable law firm. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mary calderon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable person. I was unable to locate any reference to this person or "Star Magic". The one external link on the page links to a different person on the imdb. This may be a Speedy Delete as per WP:A7 Dougofborg(talk) 12:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find any reliable source to support notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Borderline A7 call, but it's probably safe enough to let the AfD run for a week and then delete it. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage to establish notability. Moray An Par (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Competitiveness Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested WP:PROD; vaguely promotional, unsourced article which doesn't really assert notability. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:CORP. All the included references arte 1st-party, and thus do not establish notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; language of the article is obviously promotional and too vague to inform: a global network for practitioners, policy makers, researchers and business leaders working towards improving competitiveness in regions and clusters.... a forum to create progress in the practice of cluster development, regional competitiveness and innovation support. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not delete: the language of the article is no longer promotional neither vague. There are no fist-party references, just one external link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clusmy (talk • contribs) 11:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. OK. I'm calling deletion. Granted, we've no way of knowing if the person requesting deletion is the subject or not (and [9]). That would be a matter for OTRS. And, even if identity were established, we don't delete on the subject's request. However, User:Esydor, who is the only real content contributor to this article, has requested deletion [10], so that makes this a WP:CSD G7 (or at least reasonably within my admin discretion to call as such). Given the possible real world concerns, the borderline notability, and the fact this is a BLP, I think deletion is a reasonable conclusion. I'm not quite "ignoring the rules" here, but I am interpreting them in the spirit of "do no harm". Scott Mac 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Meek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject has requested deletion on the grounds that his employer, Goldman Sachs, does not "allow" its employees to have Wikipedia articles.[11][12][13] That is obviously not a valid reason for deletion, as a commercial organisation has no power to dictate what we choose to include in an encyclopedia, but this should be deleted anyway for lack of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject clearly meets the general notability guidelines. That said, the article contains personal information which is either not sourced or cited to sources that do not verify content. This information should be removed. All this said, deletion is not the answer here. Cind.amuse 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GNG. LordVetinari 13:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, with no prejudice to future action. Any request to delete along these lines should be made to the Wikimedia foundation. If they deem deletion appropriate, it can be deleted under CSD G9. —WFC— 13:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should clarify from my previous comment that I doubt the community will delete under the GNG. He just about meets it in my opinion, and borderline opinions will doubtless be swayed towards keeping by the subject's request. The sooner this AfD is closed, the more latitude the foundation will have to take a G9 decision. —WFC— 14:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm finding it difficult to see how the subject passes the general notability guideline. The secondary sources in the article appear to show borderline notability of the Start Now campaign, but not of Meek himself. Could those calling for keeping please identify the required significant coverage of Meek in independent reliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, unfortunately you've muddied the waters here. What you've got is someone, claiming to be the subject, asking for deletion. That person ought to have been directed to OTRS. There's not a snowball's chance that deletion at the suggestion of someone claiming to be the subjection will succeed. There is another question of notability. If this doesn't meet the GNG then it ought to be deleted whatever the subject thinks (although if it is borderline, then an authenticated request might have some influence with the closer). Can I suggest you do three things. a) Direct the claimed subject to OTRS b) Withdraw this nomination as hopeless (and only going to draw more attention to the subject) c) if you believe the article not notable, open a fresh nominaiton on that ground and let's discuss that clear of the other issues.--Scott Mac 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point I have been trying to make (although I would suggest that c) is not done unless or until a) and b) have been exhausted). —WFC— 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil, unfortunately you've muddied the waters here. What you've got is someone, claiming to be the subject, asking for deletion. That person ought to have been directed to OTRS. There's not a snowball's chance that deletion at the suggestion of someone claiming to be the subjection will succeed. There is another question of notability. If this doesn't meet the GNG then it ought to be deleted whatever the subject thinks (although if it is borderline, then an authenticated request might have some influence with the closer). Can I suggest you do three things. a) Direct the claimed subject to OTRS b) Withdraw this nomination as hopeless (and only going to draw more attention to the subject) c) if you believe the article not notable, open a fresh nominaiton on that ground and let's discuss that clear of the other issues.--Scott Mac 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl Alexander Acosta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Marked as no references for >1 year; sole link only confirms age Stuartyeates (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable person. Moray An Par (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Kid who can dance. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 OpenWRT. v/r - TP 22:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FreeWRT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a fork of another open source project, but it has seen only some brief media coverage around the time when the fork happened, and all the coverage was in German, even though it's not a product aimed at the German market; it looks like the main developer of this fork was German, which probably explains this issue. This fork became inactive soon thereafter, and so no more coverage is likely. FuFoFuEd (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- s/Merge to OpenWRT, from which it is forked, since the original forked version was OpenWRT. This will add additional references to OpenWRT. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 07:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge not Delete to OpenWRT as dead fork. (dead forks uh!) Widefox (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to OpenWRT. Clearly will not get notability in the future. Its references are questionable too. For example http://wiki.openwrt.org/oldwiki/OpenWrtDocs/Hardware/Linksys/WRT54GL does not mention FreeWRT at all. The OpenWRT article has its own issues, like my pet peave of talking about events now in the past in present or future tense because the article has been neglected for so long. W Nowicki (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unused old product, lacking third party coverage indeed. --Chealer (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adsdoc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references and no claim of notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Absolutely nothing to indicate that this software package passes the general notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not seeing any reliable 3rd party coverage here. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another document management software package. Hardly even evidence of existence, let alone notability. Tiny, uninformative stub. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Also reads like advertising (G11). Sandstein 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Totara LMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not attribute reliable secondary sources. I found one hit on Google Scholar, but the paper does not describe Totara in any detail. Web search returns some press releases and other unusable sites. There is a merger proposal, which I can endorse if some verification can be located. Marasmusine (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems to lack independent coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article created by a WP:SPA. FuFoFuEd (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Can we make ___________________ management system grounds for speedy deletion yet? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about that, but this article is a clear example why free software articles selling support contracts, as this one blatantly and openly does, do not belong in Wikipedia under the exception banner of "but it's free!" Instead, they need to be treated like any other product. FuFoFuEd (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Santhosh Pandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable references to prove notability of the subject. Re-creation of previously deleted article. -- Tinu Cherian - 08:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable enough (although his videos are a huge hit in youtube for all wrong reasons) --Sreejith K (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom--Sodabottle (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This guy is a nobody looking for a ego boost. The page is likely to have a negative effect for wikipedia as possible source of abusive comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nithinharidas (talk • contribs) 10:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Nithinharidas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only abusive comment here is yours. WP:NPA? Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)please delete delete[reply]
- Delete - Not enough notable. Not enough references in the articles --Anoopan (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-This article is immaterial as it is about someone who is of no great concern to any one out there. As aforementioned by other users this article is about someone looking for a ego boost and the page is likely to have a negative impact for the Wikipedia community. --User talk:Bluestreak007 —Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- — Bluestreak007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is about someone who is looking for a ego boost. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kptikku (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User:Kptikku is most like a sock of User:Nithinharidas. Both these accounts have edited only here. —Abhishek Talk to me 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Abhishek Talk to me 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. No credible claim for notability. Salih (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete: He is not an actor, a stupid fellow doing all these for cheap publicty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.242 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't conform to WP:N Arjuncodename024 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He is basically using wikipedia for his film publicity. NO more further nominations should be allowed
- There is a clear consensus for Deletion of the article and can be easily closed per WP:SNOW. But as a general rule, I won't delete page of which I have nominated the AFD and participated in . I will let some other admin close it. -- Tinu Cherian - 01:00, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Per nom. A eunanemous vote, eh? Island Monkey talk the talk 15:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with a large chunk of SNOW. I'm happy to take Simple Bob's comments below as a statement of withdrawal, and interested editors from both sides of the border appear content for the article to stay. Please don't try shortcutting the closure process though – fairness dictates that such closures must be done by someone who is uninvolved. I just about qualify in that respect as far as this article goes, so I'm doing this now in the hope of maintaining a pleasant editing environment. —SMALLJIM 12:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anglo-Cornish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary and poorly executed attempt to fork a topic that is already well covered within West Country dialects. Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My initial view was that this is already covered at West Country dialects#Celtic language influence. But will reconsider position if sufficient reliable sources are found to demonstrate distinctiveness and notability. What I am not clear about is whether this article will cover Cornish dialect - such as here - as well as "Anglo-Cornish" - such as this. Or are they the same? Clarification needed please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Now well on the way to being a worthwhile article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A clarification is the "Cornish Dialect" that is referred to in the Ken Phillips book is indeed what is referred to as Anglo-Cornish in the name of the article. The principle reason I used the name "Anglo-Cornish" is that "Cornish Dialect" to those not familiar with the topic, might be interpreted as referring to the Cornish language, rather than the dialect of English spoken in Cornwall. The name of the article is a subject under discussion in the article's own talk page. Govynn (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is signifcant material on the Anglo-Cornish dialect existing in various sources external to Wikipedia, try clicking on "books" or "scholar" above. Much of this is not well and specifically covered by the existing West Country dialects article. I, and any other editors who have an interest in the topic need sufficient time to work on this article. Govynn (talk) 09:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Govynn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I further point out that another user has supported this in the article's own talk page Govynn (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As Govynn said above. West Country dialects, which are based on Wessex Anglo Saxon forebears, should not include the unrelated dialects of Western Cornwall which are based upon both the Cornish language and possibly Oxbridge English as used by the clergy and landed classes. English was learned relatively late across the western half of Cornwall and it was from these upper sorts of people that it was learned.Bodrugan (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the term is used, see for example "Voices from West Barbary: An anthology of Anglo-Cornish poetry 1549-1928" by Alan M. Kent. DuncanHill (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please keep this article. The Cornish dialect is a stand-alone subject, and can't be lumped in with a vague "West Country" category. It contains many words that descend directly from the Cornish language, which other dialects of the south-west do not share, and many other features that are also unique to Cornwall, and even to specific regions of Cornwall. I find it remarkable and somewhat disturbing that a call for its deletion has even been lodged. One hopes that the reason is merely ignorance of the subject rather than bigotry. Marhek (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC) — Marhek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep, yes it is a West Country dialect, but it is also heavily influenced by the Cornish language, especially in West Cornwall. The dialects of Devon, Somerset etc demonstrate some Celtic influence, but nowhere near to the same extent. Why wasn't this listed on the Cornish wikiproject?--MacRusgail (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that the deletion tag be removed to allow editors time to work on the article - if anyone feels in the future, after a period of time, that the article should be deleted then they can remark it as such. Govynn (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid an editor who has been involved in the discussion about deletion cannot propose closing it, only an admin or long-standing editor who haven't been involved in the discussion can close it. With a little patience this will be resolved (possibly soon as a WP:SNOWBALL). Please don't take the tag as an attack on the article itself (or its creator) - it's just there to notify people of this on-going discussion. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I was unaware that to use the word "propose" appears to have a quasi-legal meaning, constituting part of a formal process in Wikipedia. In this case the on-going discussion here is principally a result, rather than a cause of the deletion proposal. The article was marked for deletion very quickly indeed after its creation, without following steps such as writing on the initial editor's user talk page, or the article itself's own talk page. Govynn (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid an editor who has been involved in the discussion about deletion cannot propose closing it, only an admin or long-standing editor who haven't been involved in the discussion can close it. With a little patience this will be resolved (possibly soon as a WP:SNOWBALL). Please don't take the tag as an attack on the article itself (or its creator) - it's just there to notify people of this on-going discussion. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is worth covering in a separate article though it could take some time to bring together properly referenced information from reliable sources. If it does get deleted the content should be used to improve the West country dialects article. The title is not ideal as a mere adjective: "Anglo-Cornish dialect" would be better.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes, this article is a fork, but is totally acceptable according to WP:SPINOFF; if this article was now to be incorporated into West Country dialects it would overwhelm it and make it out of balance. There are enough sources to demonstrate the worthiness of this article. Zangar (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT I'm always happy to see a bad article rescued by the Wikipedia community and turned into a good one. Feel free to remove my AfD nomination. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 21:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Invoking Wikipedia:Don't_demolish_the_house_while_it's_still_being_built I hereby remove the deletion nomination. Govynn (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think it needs an admin to close it. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 08:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After seven days have passed, the discussion is moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old, and an uninvolved (i.e. one who has not participated in the deletion discussion) admin or editor in good standing (observing the recommendations for non-admin closure) will assess the discussion and make a decision to Keep, Delete, Merge, Redirect, or Transwiki the article based on a judgment of the consensus of the discussion. If there has been no obvious consensus to change the status of the article, the person closing the AfD will state No consensus, and the article will be kept. If not enough people have joined in the discussion to judge consensus, the article will be relisted for several more days.
- The majority of AfD discussions are expected to run for at least seven days. In some cases a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies. If there is some concern over the validity of the closure, questions may first be asked of the person who closed the AfD, and, failing satisfaction there, raised at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Bodrugan (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Due to Simple Bob's withdrawal it should come under Wikipedia:Speedy keep which can be done by a non admin editor. I don't know how to close the discussion so I'll leave that for someone that does. Bodrugan (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A speedy keep still has to be properly closed and that applies to the tag on the article. I'm happy for the nomination to be withdrawn but let's follow the proper procedure. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 11:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in good faith. heading towards WP:SNOW. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cameron Potts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this has been tagged for a while for notability and sources issues. i cannot find any indepth coverage to meet WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. all the article has in one source from the not so reliable www.mp3.com.au nothing in gnews and all google comes up with is one line mentions [14]. the most indepth is this and not exactly a major music media source. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep self evident from improvement SatuSuro 10:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- whilst it looks a lot of sources at least 7 of the added sources are mere one line mentions which confirm that he was a member of certain non notable bands. LibStar (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satusuro's edits show that Potts meets MUSICBIO and GNG. Nice work. Jenks24 (talk) 14:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As above. Not heaps, but enough to keep.Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If ninetynine and Baseball are both notable, then Potts automatically is under point six of WP:MUSICBIO. Baseball have the weaker claim (and a dreadful article) but there's enough there, particularly on touring and membership (other than Potts) to suggest they qualify relatively easily. They've also survived AfD in the past. BlueThird (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per point six of the guidelines for musicians. Notability on his own may be borderline, but Potts is notable enough for Wikipedia. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)*[reply]
Strong Keep after extensively reasearching, it is clear that Potts is a notable artist, participating in a number of notable bands, which have undertaken numerous international tours, mostly organised by Potts. He is also a published author. Dan arndt (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kalrashukla Classes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article fails to meet the minimum notability criteria (CSD A7). ∃ Aaditya 7 07:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable coaching class. This is not a school--Sodabottle (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG. no extensive coverage [15]. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Musicism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism that not notable. Shrike (talk) 06:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is such a thing as "Musicism", and it may be notable. This however, is not it. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 22:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vincent Van Ghoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly non-notable. This Scooby-Doo character has no sources. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 05:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No out-of-universe context or notability, no sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo.SPNic (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The fictional character does not meet general notability guideline and an article about him can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work. The article is unreferenced, so all content is original research. Jfgslo (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuse it with The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. Maybe we should just put the whole article, along with The 13 Ghosts of Scooby-Doo. 22:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.159.36 (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Although there were more keep !votes, many of them are SPA accounts. There does not seem to be consensus based in policy and guidelines to support keeping or deleting this article. v/r - TP 23:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable warez group Ridernyc (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable warez group that has been unanimously kept twice. jorgenev 06:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Unanimous" by the same handful of editors who actually never established notability. There are no third-party sources. As it stands, this fails WP:NOTE. Where are the sources? freshacconci talktalk 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A "notable warez group that has been unanimously kept twice": so where are the sources? Looking at the last two discussion there's a great deal of bad-faith attacking of the nominators for not knowing what this is supposed to be and some really weak justifications of self-published references being used to establish notability. It's been four years since the last AFD: where are the third-party sources? As someone who hasn't a clue what the hell this is supposed to be about, why have there been no edits by the supporters of the two AFDs to bring this up to standards? It's poorly written and makes no attempt to explain what Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated is supposed to be. The previous AFDs insist that this is notable. I see no evidence yet. I am holding off on a !vote for now. freshacconci talktalk 14:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was hopeful that Wikipedia had grown beyond the "are you crazy, of course this is notable" arguments. The previous AFD's for this are basically irrelevant, compared to our current policies there was basically no inclusion criteria back than. I have yet to see a valid argument made for keeping this article. There has also been no improvement to the article in 6 years. While I would love for these groups to have pages and detailed histories on here, there are just no reliable sources for any of it at this time. Ridernyc (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is administered on a regular bases and states information about one of the three underground computer scene groups, which founded the scene in the 1980's. Over the years, there have been many attempts to delete this site, also sections of it, by people from the scene, for various reasons. TRSI represents a group of people, working creatively in programing, graphics, animation and alternative platforms, recognized by peers all over the digital sphere. Many productions are link referenced. Keep this part of pop culture on Wikipedia, due to public interest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.34.218 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why delete a page of such public interest. All involved in tech sociology know about this group, you can back-check all their mentioned products on www.scene.org or www.pouet.net or even go to www.trsi.de and verify. Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated is computer history, why not let folks know about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar.Press (talk • contribs) 16:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "public interest" has nothing to do with it. This needs verifiable, third-party sources. freshacconci talktalk 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, how DARE Wikipedia think of the public interest! It's not like they're the ones reading this stuff!189.222.12.246 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "public interest" has nothing to do with it. This needs verifiable, third-party sources. freshacconci talktalk 23:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. TRSI are the biggest of the big. Here's almost 200 reasons why deleting is not only inappropriate but unquestionably malicious: http://pouet.net/groups.php?which=280 or http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trsi+demo . These digital arts superheroes devoted huge portions of their lives to create some of the most memorable and genre-defining pieces of real-time art a person could wish a computer to subject them to. To dismiss the group as a mere 'warez' group is to fail to take the effort to inform oneself of simple facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongledan (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any sources to back up those claims? freshacconci talktalk 21:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is the reason to delete this entry really just the comment 'not-notable warez group' ? TRSI is far more: a demo-scene group which evolved from their cracking roots from the 1980 and 90s (far before the the term warez was used.) If noteable in the warez context: they have been one of the first groups which have been involved in cracking software (an interesting historical aspect, I think). So first : the comment "just a warez group" wouldn´t fit. Second: They also have taken part in creating intros,demos and few breakthroughs for the demoscene (so from a historical view more than just notable in context with the demoscene) and still are creating demos, music and graphics in the demoscene context.(compare the last entries at pouet which is the website to check for demoscene releases: http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=280&order=release) Compared to that it would be as if you would say from a famous band that they are not notable. But the demoscene as a sub-culture is sometimes intransparent for outsiders, so maybe this could have lead to suggest the deleting. I think the facts themself tell something different — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.247.10.32 (talk • contribs)
- Comment. I'd like to add this link to back up some information: http://noname.c64.org/csdb/group/?id=602 from being in the scene these days, I can assure you that the claim made on this Scene-driven-website is pretty correct: 1993 they were pretty much the most influential cracking-group on the C-64 with lots of different intros, an enormous amount of releases. Deleting an article on the group is pretty much like showing to have no clue whatsoever. I agree though, that the article might need some polish, but that is no reason for deletion, just for amelioration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.1.239 (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why do you want do delete this aricle? I've an old very big paper encyclopedia at home, but I don't use it very often because I use wikipedia because there are much more articles like this init. TRSI is an old cracker and demo group and it's not impossible to find sources for it. Look at http://www.pouet.net/groups.php?which=280&order=release look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demomaker and much more. You will find very much articles about TRSI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.243.194.45 (talk • contribs)
- Neither of those are reliable sources per WP:RS. The latter is the German Wikipedia. How is that helpful? If there are no third-party sources available to verify any of the claims, I can't imagine !voting for anything other than delete at this time. freshacconci talktalk 14:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've tried finding something, anything that could help establish and verify the notability of this. I've searched under both Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated and TRSi. There are no third-party sources out there. Everything is connected to the actual warez group. I do actually believe the supporters here that this group has this history but without actual WP:RS nothing can be verified. The only "keep" !vote so far doesn't actually provide an actual rationale for keep other than this has survived two AFDs in the past. Looking at those two discussions, there were no arguments given to establish notability here. Since the last AFD four years ago nothing has been brought forward to help. Unless third-party sources rather than anecdotal evidence can be brought forward, there is no option other than to delete. freshacconci talktalk 14:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the perfect example of everything that is wrong with Wikipedia editors these days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.78.226 (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In this case you should delete all entries for demoscene and all related entries. There are parties every year (you can look up site like these where the results of the contests are shown(http://breakpoint.untergrund.net/results.php - a official party with an official contest)and search for trsi and you have reference. Informations from other sources (same precedures:look up and search trsi) http://revision-party.net/history/2011 or http://blog.zdf.de/3sat.neues/2010/05/31/trsi-demo_fur_android/ (a small report shown from the german tv-channel 3sat) or check books like:"Freax: The Brief History of the Computer Demoscene". Most informations of the demoscene can be found in discmags which has been a standard way to exchange information before the web in the demoscene if you don´t see a scroller below a demo as a reference (which has been the first way to exchange greetings and infos ).
- Comment I think freshacconi hates TRSI, because you find very much about in the web like this:
http://no-copy.org/trsi.html (A german book) DataBecker is a german software company http://www.databecker.de/ DataBecker sold the Red Sector Demo Maker in the 1990er look here: http://www.classicamiga.com/images/stories/jreviews/software/R/rsi%20demo%20maker%20%281991%29%28red%20sector%29_001.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.184.13.89 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep A warez group made it into multiple published books in a foreign language. Welp, there's your notability. Time Magazine isn't writing about warez groups. The New York Post doesn't put that day's warez articles next to the ones about what strain of hep A-Rod caught this week. The notability guidelines are awful, laughable, and obviously inapplicable to something like a warez group, which centers around a subversive scene and illegal activity. Now, having said that, welcome to the part where the one guy has made this the literal center of his life handwaves over the very sources he was asking for via self-parroting and gets it nuked anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceCreamJonsey (talk • contribs)
- Hey, I tried finding sources and held off !voting. I have no vested interest in this being kept or deleted. Unfortunately, underground means less legitimacy. That's the way the world works sometimes. As for the sources provided above, the first link is a single line in a book. The other two, I have no idea what those are supposed to be. So what we have is one book which mentions this group in passing. Sorry, per Wikipedia guidelines, that is trivial. Everyone (if these comments are from more than one editor) really needs to read WP:V and WP:RS. freshacconci talktalk 00:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've heard of them, they are notable in their subject area. They are mentioned (admittedly briefly) in published sources, e.g.: [16] [17]. Someone with more familiarity with the subject could probably come up with better ones, Google doesn't scan everything. The article could certainly use some sourcing but I don't think deletion is the solution. DopefishJustin (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - some additional publications mentioning their 'notability' [18] and [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnosan (talk • contribs) 09:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Even network television features TRSI productions, so how can you say, there are no third party references = http://blog.zdf.de/3sat.neues/2010/05/31/trsi-demo_fur_android/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.34.218 (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The scholarly works linked above by Jonnosan meet WP:RS guidelines. Dyer-Witheford is a noted scholar of computer history: if he claims something is important, that is good enough for me. Dariusk (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think that the aforementioned link meet the requirement of "significant coverage". They are mentioned in passing once. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Along with the whole lot of these demoscene and warez group pages. If the "scene" wants to have its own "in-universe" warezipedia or whatever, then by all means. But by their very nature, underground groups like this only receive 3rd party, reliable sources when they are of importance. If all you have is a bunch primary sources, and a passing mention in a book, you don't meet WP:NOTE. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'd also like to point out that all of the commenting IPs so far have only ever edited this AFD and the article in question. Food for thought. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's almost like some people only edit and comment on things they're knowledgeable about. Imagine that! 95.34.78.226 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Says the guy who vandalized the page. Doesn't exactly help your case. Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's almost like some people only edit and comment on things they're knowledgeable about. Imagine that! 95.34.78.226 (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, for people who would like to see references of TRSI in third person literature, try to read: http://www.amazon.de/Hackerland-Logbuch-Szene-Denis-Moschitto/dp/3932170296/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308727258&sr=8-1 and http://www.amazon.de/Freax-Brief-History-Computer-Demoscene/dp/3981049403 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar.Press (talk • contribs) 07:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those would actually help to establish notability if you would be able to provide page numbers and give us a sense of how TRSi is discussed in those books. My German is limited but if we could verify those two books discuss TRSi in detail, that definitely help. As I've said, I have no vested interest in keeping or deleting this article and I believe the supporters here when they say this group has a significant history. However, one core policy is verifiability. And policy is not negotiable. freshacconci talktalk 13:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I feel very sorry for me and my group that ppl still call us a warez group. We where the first who released a demo on android, we where the first who released a demo on xbox360. We are party of the mainorganizing teams of Breakpoint (http://breakpoint.untergrund.net)(rip),Revision (http://www.revision-party.net) and Mainparty in France (http://www.mainparty.net) the biggest pure demoscene events on the entire planet. We havent crack software since years...so actually to call us a warezgroup is a farce. I guess the hate in this discussion comes from a totally other direction, and shall only be covered/hidden here with other topics. TRSi even had its own record label... so wtf. If TRSi is only "3rd Party mentioned" then "Hells Angels" and all other Motorcycleclubs should be deleted here aswell - because theya are aswell only 3rd Party mentioned. / - docd/TRSi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedocd (talk • contribs) 12:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you actually look at the Hells Angels article, there are 159 references from third-party sources, so that's not a particularly good example of an article lacking third-party sources. Given the Hells Angels history, they of course have been covered by countless news sources and books. And there's no hate here, we're just trying to maintain Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Again, I ask people to actually read WP:V and WP:RS. We need sources not connected to TRSi that discuss the group in a bit of detail, not just a brief mention. As for any articles lacking good sources, read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Wikipedia is huge and has a relatively small number of volunteer editors. There are plenty of badly written unsourced articles out there. Because one has slipped by the attention of editors is not a reason to keep this article. freshacconci talktalk 13:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Find some news coverage of these events and how TRSi relates to it, then. If it's not being covered by reliable sources (see WP:RS), then it's not going to meet WP:V. For example, PDXLAN is one of the biggest LAN parties on the west coast of the US, and has been running for a decade or so now. Since it doesn't get independent coverage in reliable sources, you won't find a wikipedia article about it, or its founder, rightfully so. Just because something is big and important to you doesn't mean that it meets notability and verifiability requirements for inclusion in wikipedia.Vertigo Acid (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This starts becoming a biased farce, when two people decide to delete an article they don't appreciate, then get proved wrong and then decide to ignore all facts that are put forward. If they had any knowledge of the subject matter, this would all be pointless in the first place. Everybody in tech sociology and grassroots digital realms knows TRSI to be one of the founding institutions of the homebrew and scene community and the ones outside, stay outside. Go to www.pouet.net or www.bitfellas.org and start reading the forums. You might learn something new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.34.218 (talk) 23:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't use fora to establish notability, and in this case, reliability. Take a look at WP:V: You claims may be true, but unless you have evidence, I couldn't tell if you were lying or not.Curb Chain (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep more links - Even in the world of Elektro Music, TRSI left a mark, as you can read here: (http://www.4players.de/4sceners.php/dispnews/-/2058557/index.html) Also, see these pages for further third party references: (http://www.defacto2.net/groups.cfm?mode=detail&org=pe-trsi-defjam-tdt) and (http://www.defacto2.net/groups.cfm?mode=detail&org=trsi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar.Press (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How do those links meet WP:RS? Vertigo Acid (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - For an example of a demogroup that meets the necessary requirements, see Future Crew. Coverage in reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Vertigo Acid (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Okay, so here are the external links for Future Crew (by the way, "hi" to Skaven): Pouet.net / Defacto2.net / Scene.org / Music Magazine / YouTube.com ... Guess what, those were all already mentioned for TRSi on this page here! And by the way, talking about YouTube: (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=trsi&aq=f) gets over 600 hits for TRSI productions, posted by third parties. Notice something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.191.34.218 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really, really wish people would read WP:V before posting. There is a huge lack of understanding about what a reliable source is and what "third-party" means. Youtube is not a source. People commenting on youtube are not reliable sources, are not "third-party" sources, even if they are unaffiliated with TRSi. Sources must be published, print or web, but, again, read WP:V & WP:RS to find out what counts as a source. freshacconci talktalk 21:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutranity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A philosophy seemingly made-up in school one day. No sources, nothing from a Google search suggests this is notable. 28bytes (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is not my intention to bite what appears to be a new comer but the author might wish to begin here, Policies and guidelines should he/she consider writing another article. Here is what Wikipedia is not. Items 2.2 and 2.3 might be of special interest to the author.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Defend. Of course there will be no sources (yet), when this "religion" is newly formed. This is just a beginning;
The "religion" is a hope for those who have nothing to believe in. Why take away hope, when it's simply a single page on Wikipedia? Maybe there's a person out there who is about to give up hope, and then, he discovers and reads the page: the page may just be the persons last hope before loosing all faith. Why delete hope, when it's just a single page on Wikipedia?
The page will grow and more information will be added: references from the Christian Bible will be included, quotes will be added and more symbolism will be added and explained. Don't kill Neutranity, believe in it and give it hope, give somebody else hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 12:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a webhost. This belongs somewhere else on the internet. If in the future it's covered in reliable secondary sources, then it might be time to have an encyclopaedia article on it, but that time is not here now. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Defend. I truly understand, that Wikipedia is NOT a web host. But I already know 2 people, who found the article helpful.
Wikipedia is all about learning stuff, right? And the article might be new and unfinished, but it's pure wisdom and truth. The article is for people who SEARCH for help and answers, so why delete something, that might count as an answer?
I have always been taught, that if you believe in something, then you must never give up hope. And the article might be new, but it has already helped people, who searched for help. It has given hope and knowledge. So why remove the opportunity to get an answer?
My friends and I are working hardly to give people hope, to teach people that they must fight for what they want, and Neutranity is a great help for those, who feel lost and not cared about. We are researching the Christian Bible for further answers and references. Why we do this? Profit, you might think? No, no profit. Fame, you might think? No, no fame! Love, is the answer. We want to give a chance to everyone - we want everyone to feel welcome.
- Delete; as well intentioned as this may be, Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But why kill and remove something of pure and good purpose?
And as mentioned before, the article will get references from the Bible itself. How much more nobility do you need? At least give it some time. Give a chance, how cold hearted can people be? I thought, that Wikipedia was all about helping people learn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 14:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the link I gave you above? Good cause≠notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Defend. Yes, I read the article you linked.
And I thought about it; Although this is for a good cause, it's still a religion. And some other religions are for a good cause too, but are they noble? Is the Bible noble? Do we have evidence, and is that evidence noble? Nothing is completely noble, but what makes the different things and religions noble then? We do. Our beliefs do.
I can make this more noble, and I'm working on it. But I need at least a week, before I have all the references, which can make the article more noble. I have collected a lot of documents and information from e.g. the Bible, and I'm also working with other things, so it is very hard for me, to make it all happen fast.
And I also understand that the article is NOT completely noble. And it would be acceptable, if the article would be marked as "Not noble" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.houstrup (talk • contribs) 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, made-up philosophy / religion - no results on Google web or news searches or other evidence of notability. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Defend. The article needs time. Try reading the article, and ask yourself: "Why would you delete it?"
Of course, the article seems non-noble, because there are YET no references. But they will come, the article and I need more time.
And also, how can it return any Google searches, if it's a newly formed religion? M.houstrup (talk) 14:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A new religion that was made up at school one day. No sources whatsoever. Even the text is very vague, it's hard to distinguish what's the point of this religion other than "think positive and try to do good things". JIP | Talk 18:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Defend.I agree, that the article has no sources, but so far, I have found 2 references from the Christian Bible (I haven't yet included them), and these references have a huge influence on the religion. But is there anything better, than if we all thought positive, did good things and lived a great life? And about the language: It's probably a bit (or very) poor, but you are more than welcome to help and re-write some of the sentences, as long as you keep the moral.
But although the religions point seems very nude and unclear, there's more to it, than "just" being positive.
If you have a bad time, when everything just seems shit*y, then what could be better, than someone telling you that you're worth more? That you're welcome and that there's always someone, who will care about you? That's the point of this religion: Love! M.houstrup (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only reference to Neutranity in Google Books this: URL http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Neutranity&btnG=Search+Books and has nothing to do with the content of this article. As other editors have indicated, see what Wikipedia is not. Govynn (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Defend I just don't understand why you people oversee the fact that this is only for a better purpose? That the article is to help people, and give them hope. Sigh. It just frightens me how cold some people are these days. Who does this article hurt?
But instead of deleting the article, is it at least possible to "hide" it, so I can work on it, and then ask for a review, when I finally have included sources and references? M.houstrup (talk)
And this is how the flame of a new hope goes out.
- Hope is the poor man's bread.
- Delete. The article makes no assertion of notability, and the total lack of sources (which the entry's author conceded above) means that notability cannot be established. Dawn Bard (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Edwin herdman's sources are passing mentions, which normally are not considered sufficient for notability. Sandstein 05:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Case Against Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Book that fails to meet any of the notability criteria listed at Wikipedia:Notability (books). brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Brewcrewer. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It may be considered notable. A few minutes' search turned up a reference in a Seattle Post-Intelligencer column, though it is not clear if the text comes from the book (most likely) or a direct interview with the author; and perhaps more relevantly was cited in [20] the journal Social Identities], which appears to be a smaller but still relevant subject. I also must insert a small disclaimer: I haven't read this book or have any particular stance with regards to its content, nor have a horse in the race of the article's deletion, or criticisms of Israel-related policy. The names involved simply caught my eye due to similarity with familiar works when I came back to AfD. Edwin Herdman (talk) 09:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find sufficient RS support for notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G7 speedy deletion (User:Skier Dude). (NAC) Raymie (t • c) 05:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ezplot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Software does not meet criteria of WP:NSOFT. I searched Google for ezplot "office expander" and could only find download sites. References given in the article are either to the software's page itself, a download site, or do not mention it at all. Author removed prod tag as well as maintenance tags calling for improved references. ... discospinster talk 03:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Discospinster did not reply to any user talk. I decided to delete eZplot anyway. Inquiry2 (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did reply on the article talk page, on the same day that the question was asked. ... discospinster talk 04:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Red Aloe (Mis-belief) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about some misconception people in India have about the Red Aloe plant. I have asked for sources multiple times but all sources presented only talk of Aloe ferox from a botany perspective, not talking about the "misbelief," which comes off as WP:OR. Since Red Aloe already has a botany article, I'm moving for deletion. Noformation Talk 01:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - OR / POV fork (for a plant!)--Sodabottle (talk) 14:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 04:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Person does not seem to be notable. Article is a WP:Coatrack to talk about a controversy he was involved in. This gives an unfair impression of the person, (IMO) in violation of the spirit of WP's policies on coverage of living persons. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: The study and the professor appear to be highly notable. I don't see the coatrack at all - the negative info is about the folks who questioned his study and even if it was, it would be an editing exercise rather than deletion. Toddst1 (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't have a strong opinion on whether Edwards is notable. However, the article, as presently constituted, is not about Edwards. It's about the events in DC regarding the drinking water. Edwards was a major player in that controversy, and maybe the controversy deserves an article, but if editors feel the controversy is notable, then the article should be renamed appropriately. If Edwards deserves an article, then it should be a separate article and be about him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Comment. I just found out from the nominator that there already is an article on the controversy: Lead contamination in Washington, D.C. drinking water. It has also been nominated for deletion. It's much shorter than the Edwards article. Clearly, the two articles and the resolution of what to do are all interrelated.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedySnow Keep: Clearly meets WP:PROF notability guideline—Edwards holds a named chair at Virginia Tech, one of the nation's premier technical institutions. [21] That meets criterion 5 of PROF, so that's more or less an instant "in". Plus, the information about the controversy suggests that there's sufficient reliable, independent sources to write an article about the subject. The article may have WP:UNDUE issues and badly needs a copy-edit, but neither is a deletable offense. There may also be WP:BLP1E concerns, but the PROF notability may counterweight that. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, as I look through a Google search on "marc edwards -wikipedia -NFL", I'm seeing a ton of RSes, including a Time article naming him one of the innovators of 2004. [22] I'm going to adopt this article; this guy is so undeniably notable that it's a crying shame our article on him is such a stub. I cannot see any way that this article has a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted if we adhere to notability guidelines, so I'm changing my !vote to snow keep. (Typed this before Agricola44, but got so into editing the article I forgot to hit save...) // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is notable enough. The article should be expanded. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. The article's content may be an issue, but that should be addressed via editing, not AfD. In addition to holding a named professorship (WP:PROF #5), he's a MacArthur Fellow (WP:PROF #2), and has published numerous highly cited research papers – WoS shows 63 articles having cites 70, 70, 64, 58 (h-index 19) which is outstanding for an area of civil engineering (WP:PROF #1). This evidence is conclusive and holding this AfD open any longer will only waste others' time. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. It is clear that Edwards is notable - the MacArthur award alone is enough to satisfy both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. It is true that the current text of the article is not balanced and there are significant WP:WEIGHT problems, but I think the way to deal with it is to change the article rather than to delete it. Nsk92 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn If by WP's standards (which I don't especially agree with, or even understand) he gets an automatic keep because of his successful career, then keep. However please do something about moving the information about the controversy to its own article, or another (for instance the article on the DC water system itself.) It was only one incident in his life, and as others have said the controversy wasn't his fault. He was just doing his job. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it. Still, this episode is a very major part of his life that received multiple front-page articles in a newspaper of record (the Washington Post), a writeup in Time, a feature article in the ASEE newsletter, and resulted in a MacArthur grant. That suggests that it's a substantial event in his life that does need appropriate and proportional coverage. Per WP:BLP, we need to cover events in proportion to the sources, and that suggests that this article needs more than a blurb about his uncovering what was, by all accounts, a sizable public health cover-up. At this point in working over the article, I'm satisfied that WP:BLP1E isn't going to be an issue—while this incident is a shining beacon in the man's biography, he has continued to be notable not only academically, but in the popular press, since the 2004 event. I mean, come on, the man was quoted in Good Housekeeping of all places.[23] // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Great work. (Not the intention of the AfD to improve the article.) I now understand what the whole thing was about. I would say leave the controversial incident in his article and also mention it in the article on the DC water system, but not give it its own article because of "not news." Steve Dufour (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sometimes that's the best possible outcome of an AfD: A terrible disservice of an article about a truly interesting and notable topic gets caught and corrected. :) However, I would still say that the event may be notable enough in its own right for an article. WP:NOTNEWS applies to routine and breaking news; Edwards's findings are still plaguing the DC water system, and his name is still invoked in the local papers of record as new water-quality issues come up. (Yes, they still have some lead issues.) But I'm going to leave that bit of article rescue for someone else.
- I did remove one particular bit of controversial coatracking, though. The old article made a big to-do over an ethics question about the CDC paper that Edwards so ably blew to pieces with his own research. That controversy was so tangentally related that it has no business here... but it would definitely merit a short paragraph in an article about the 2000–2004 Washington DC water lead contamination. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Great work. (Not the intention of the AfD to improve the article.) I now understand what the whole thing was about. I would say leave the controversial incident in his article and also mention it in the article on the DC water system, but not give it its own article because of "not news." Steve Dufour (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it. Still, this episode is a very major part of his life that received multiple front-page articles in a newspaper of record (the Washington Post), a writeup in Time, a feature article in the ASEE newsletter, and resulted in a MacArthur grant. That suggests that it's a substantial event in his life that does need appropriate and proportional coverage. Per WP:BLP, we need to cover events in proportion to the sources, and that suggests that this article needs more than a blurb about his uncovering what was, by all accounts, a sizable public health cover-up. At this point in working over the article, I'm satisfied that WP:BLP1E isn't going to be an issue—while this incident is a shining beacon in the man's biography, he has continued to be notable not only academically, but in the popular press, since the 2004 event. I mean, come on, the man was quoted in Good Housekeeping of all places.[23] // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Calenco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to lack independent coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in 3rd party references to establish notability, created by an SPA, so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- La Salle-FEU MBA-JD Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable degree program. "The Consortium offers the first dual degree program in the postgraduate level to be offered in the Philippines." is the only claim to notability. It is unverified however (dubious references; and I can't find any in the Internet). Even if it is to be true, it does not convincing that it should have its own article given the lack of significant independent coverage. Moray An Par (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I agree with the nominator. I can't find any sources either. Reyk YO! 20:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1989 (Demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NALBUM; no 3rd party references that show this demo is notable Tassedethe (talk) 11:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.<br /
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with deleting this article. The band is notable, and all other releases by the band are covered. It should be made a complete list. And simply including the demo in the article about the band won't cut it, because you should have the track listings and lengths. It's not hurting anything; just leave it up.
--SuperEditor (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOHARM notes why "it's not hurting anything" is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. Can you provide reliable references to verify the details in this article? Can you provide any 3rd party references to show why this demo is notable? Tassedethe (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability has not been established - no evidence of significant coverage in relaible 3rd party sources. The band is notable, but that doesn't mean that every demo they release is notable, per WP:NALBUM. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alpha Phi Epsilon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fraternity. Moray An Par (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Moray An Par (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:N. The article has a serious need for references, I searched online for references and couldn't find literally anything except the group's website. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. More discussion is needed in order to determine if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not sure this should have been kept last time around (or, at least, I'm surprised to read some of the opinions expressed). I can't find any reliable sources covering it in any significant detail (or, really, any detail at all). The GNews archive results referenced in the last AfD don't include anything like actual coverage of this organization, or, erm, coverage of this actual organization, as far as I can tell, and I'm not getting the "plainly notable" assertions present there, either. Others searching for references should be very careful to review the results Google uncovers to make sure they are actually about the organization described in this article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On that note, the links to information provided in the previous nomination actually pertain to a different organization with the same name. Moray An Par (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep - Oh, goody, back to the ALPHA+BLANK+BLANK fraternity and sorority challenges with brilliantly expressed rationale "Non-notable fraternity." Is the nominator familiar with the previous problems we had with the previous onslaught of ALPHA+BLANK+BLANK nominations? Did the nominator observe WP:BEFORE? Does the nominator have more than 3 words to say about why this article should be removed from Wikipedia instead of being tagged for improvement? Carrite (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have anything substantive to add to this discussion by way of an actual reason to keep the article? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SNOWBALL we must first determine if this is even worth doing any improvement. If you did do researching on the topic, you can find that this article does not meet WP:SNG, in which case it seems that you didn't. Voting for keeping it because of what you see as a poorly written nomination rather than actually researching on it is not a valid argument. IMHO, it's a blatant expression of how bureaucracy can run counter building consensus. Moray An Par (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I put more work into asking if the nominator followed WP:BEFORE than the nominator did in explaining why this article merits deletion. Somehow there is a mentality that nominations don't need to have research or effort behind them, but defenses do. After the abusive, automation-assisted attack of over 100 ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK fraternities and sororities (see the AN/I archives for details), you're damned right that I'm gonna be fussy and bitchy about somebody rolling out a zero effort nomination of an ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK fraternity or sorority. And no, I'm not gonna do five minutes of research to defend from a five second nomination. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suit yourself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll follow up on this a bit more, because your attitude and reaction is mystifying to me.
- The article has been tagged for improvement since 2008. I think that's why it "should be removed instead of being tagged for improvement."
- "Non-notable" is a very clear explanation of the reason for deletion. The nominator also makes clear in followup comments that he's done some research, as do two other delete votes (myself and SwisterTwister). You make clear from your own comments that not only have you not done any research to back up your position, you are unwilling to do so. As such, I am stumped as to why you think anybody, let alone an administrator reviewing this discussion, should ascribe any weight or merit to your opinion, and I am further stumped as to why you think the efforts you've put in to not supplying a keep rationale somehow trump somebody at least giving a rationale for deletion.
- WP:BURDEN -- which is Wikipedia policy -- places the burden on the person adding or arguing for the inclusion of content to find sourcing for that content. I am sorry you disagree with this "mentality" but, again, that is Wikipedia policy. Find some sourcing to back up your keep contentions, and I will happily change my vote.
- The past mass-deletion issue is basically irrelevant. Its only similarity is that it affected the same topic, but as long as this is not part of another mass-deletion issue, I fail to see how bringing that up makes your case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I put more work into asking if the nominator followed WP:BEFORE than the nominator did in explaining why this article merits deletion. Somehow there is a mentality that nominations don't need to have research or effort behind them, but defenses do. After the abusive, automation-assisted attack of over 100 ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK fraternities and sororities (see the AN/I archives for details), you're damned right that I'm gonna be fussy and bitchy about somebody rolling out a zero effort nomination of an ALPHA-BLANK-BLANK fraternity or sorority. And no, I'm not gonna do five minutes of research to defend from a five second nomination. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In the sense of "not delete"; there is quite a lot of support for a merger, but no clear consensus, and the merge target is also not clear. That discussion can continue on the talk page if needed. Sandstein 05:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not Notable and can be put in other articles
I'm proposing this article for Deletion.
First of all, I have a lot of respect for the D&D game, I am a player/fan, and I have appreciated the work of the editors to provide quality entries about the major subjects. People who work on the WikiProject for D&D have done a great job. However, this particular article (and a category of them), is not of good quality. This has been brought to my attention based on a few related deletion votes, so I've decided to choose one of the more egregrious articles.
The Medusa already has an entry on Wikipedia that explains what the creature is in Mythology. There is also an entry for Greek Mythology in Popular Culture that lists several fictional variants of the Medusa. Furthermore, the article's sole contribution is either a Bibliography of which version of the rules the creature was published in, or an in-universe style of description (that isn't much different from its classic form). If we allow an entry for the D&D Medusa, what about all the different variations in other games. I think the violates the policy for WP:NOTABILITY. JRT (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than add a delete tag to several of these, I wanted to bring up the subject that many of the monsters in this list are similar. I don't believe they should all have a seperate article, and many (but not all) of the individual articles are not significant enough to warrant their own entries. Satyr__(Dungeons_&_Dragons), Dryad_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), Manticore_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), Faun_(Dungeons_&_Dragons), etc, are all mostly variants of the classic mythology.
Dungeons_&_Dragons_creatures_from_folklore_and_mythology
Addendum: I would suggest the following possibilities.
- Delete the article.
- Merge the article into Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Medusa, without the bibliography--this can be whittled down to a distinct paragraph.
- Merge the "D&D Creatures from Folklore/Mythology" articles into one single article. This would require some discussion with the D&D WikiProject in terms of categorization. But I think it's clear based on past precedent we should not encourage a separate article for every D&D monster out there.
JRT (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Though the ones you have listed seem okay to receive such treatment at the first glance, I would caution you against anything like mass tagging. Some creatures in D&D are mainly background features, while others are fairly central and important to the property and have significant identities distinct from their mythical inspirations (where they exist) and are have notability through mention in third party products. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI agree about not mass tagging, and that's why I haven't done so, however, this particular really doesn't add anything. I have no objection to articles about fictional beasts if they suffice to be notable (for instance, Kender which are part of a widely-read novel series), however, not every D&D monster is worth putting in WP either (and should likely be moved to Wikia or other sources), and I think the articles on the mythological based monsters, which are based on the mythological creature, do not need a seperate article on Wikipedia. I have to say about half of the articles in that list would not meet any notability. JRT (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely doesn't need it's own article (it'd never be more than a stub). Strongly oppose anything but a passing mention of this in the Greek mythology's article, since that has the potential to be a massive article and this is but a minor occurence. The last option of a single article for all characters is preferable, but I don't think such an article needs to be categorised according to origin. Instead, I suggest to merge the content into the relevant lists at Lists of Dungeons & Dragons monsters. Lord knows we don't need another one of those just to categorise the entries according to origin... Rennell435 (talk) 07:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Rennell435 above, as while the isolated, specific subject itself isn't particularly notable, the distant second-best option of merging into the Greek mythology article would rationally encourage clutter. Since D&D is notable itself and conducive to the creation of useful dedicated lists, it should and ought to be put there instead. Edwin Herdman (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is well-sourced and scoped and should be maintained per our editing policy. Greek mythology in popular culture is much worse - a grotesque list which needs to be completely rewritten. Warden (talk) 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Greek Mythology in Popular Culture appears to be a red-link, which makse your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument just that little bit more stupid. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ahem --> Greek mythology in popular culture.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That article was suggested by the nominator as a merge target. I had copied the name but that was a piped alias. I have amended the link to the underlying article name. Warden (talk) 18:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is "well sourced", could you explain where are all the "reliable sources independent of the subject" that are inherent to good sourcing ? Because there are none, and you know it. How long are you going to repeat the same false statements ? Your persistant refusal to respect one of the most important rules of WP and to acknowledge what others tell you is borderline disruptive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the article is "Well Sourced", it's not very fitting an encyclopedia. I'd argue that covering the minor monsters for RPGs, especially those that aren't either original IP and like this one taken from a mythological creature verbatim, seems to violate WP:NOTGUIDE. Since that guideline says we should not create dedicated articles on subjects like video game weapons, creatures, vehicles, etc., I'd argue that we should apply that to game RPG content. It's not like this information can't be found elsewhere, even the OGL rules can be placed in Wikimedia:Commons. I'm willing to see articles where it crosses over into fiction, is a major cultural point or contribution (Drow elves, for instance), etc. But this one certainly does not fit that guideline. JRT (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is "well sourced", could you explain where are all the "reliable sources independent of the subject" that are inherent to good sourcing ? Because there are none, and you know it. How long are you going to repeat the same false statements ? Your persistant refusal to respect one of the most important rules of WP and to acknowledge what others tell you is borderline disruptive.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Greek Mythology in Popular Culture appears to be a red-link, which makse your WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument just that little bit more stupid. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 18:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden, or merge as described above - no need to delete this. BOZ (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. References are player guides, not significant commentary. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete No significant coverage of the topic in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, thus non notable and does not deserve article, per WP:GNG. Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge to Medusa - the two are the same entity. I'd rather have a more robust single article than an artificial dichotomy here. Sources currently are primary. I suspect there are some commentary on the development of D&D material (i.e secondary sources), but I don't have any to hand. Casliber
(talk · contribs) 02:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they aren't. One is mythological, one is fictional. They are separated in time by thousands of years. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are both malign snake-haired female evil beings who turn victims to stone with their gaze. I don't hold that the Ancient Greeks necessarily believed they were real either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, neither of them is a malign being. One of them is a fictional construct in a 20th century game and the other is a mythological creature in stories told in Ancient Greece.
- Casliber, what relevance is the Publication history, for example, of the D&D medusa to the real mythological medusa? To host any of that kind of content there would be WP:UNDUE. Rennell435 (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, neither of them is a malign being. One of them is a fictional construct in a 20th century game and the other is a mythological creature in stories told in Ancient Greece.
- They are both malign snake-haired female evil beings who turn victims to stone with their gaze. I don't hold that the Ancient Greeks necessarily believed they were real either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they aren't. One is mythological, one is fictional. They are separated in time by thousands of years. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whatever the outcome, a large portion of the "content" can be substantially summarised. The entire "publication history" section contains about two-sentences-worth of information. Rather than repeating "the medusa appears in the Monster Manual for this edition" under every section, it should simply be "... appears in the Monster Manual for w, x, y and z editions". Stretching the same piece of information across multiple sections doesn't help the reader. Rennell435 (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - I think I am leaning towards the merge plan of Nom here (with emphasis on the fact that there is no suitable merge target; one should be created). Many of these mythically derived creature articles have excessive in-universe style material that isn't even useful to most fans, as it seems to be derived from a particular edition's take that is less than uniform. As Rennell435 states above, the factual publication history is even a bit wordy; I think that a summary style article could present this info better. Finally, I think such an article would be much easier to support with references: one may quibble that an article that mentions a particular creature may be trivial, but that a resource mentions that D&D includes mythical resource should be non-controversial and not too difficult to find. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or weak merge to Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Medusa: The fictional monster of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise does not meet the general notability guideline as an individual subject. The article is referenced with primary sources and tertiary sources, but no secondary sources that make analytic or evaluative claims about the chronology and which for notability purposes are the ones that provide the most objective evidence of notability, so there is no presumption that the Medusa of Dungeon & Dragons deserves to have a stand-alone article. A search engine test shows nothing to presume something different. Given the lack of detailed mentions of this particular Medusa in reliable secondary sources, I'm not convinced that a merge to Greek_mythology_in_popular_culture#Medusa would be the best option but, since there are other versions of Medusa mentioned there that are even weaker, I suppose it's an acceptable alternative. Jfgslo (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interesting article, well sourced, with educational links. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How is this article "educational"? There's very little information that is not either solely a bibliography, or otherwise deals with game stuff (such as the creature being lawful evil) that would be notable. JRT (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 18:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How is this article "educational"? There's very little information that is not either solely a bibliography, or otherwise deals with game stuff (such as the creature being lawful evil) that would be notable. JRT (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. I think D&D's medusa is distinct enough (generalizing an entire race from a single individual) that Wikipedia should cover it. I don't know if it needs its own article or not. I like the idea of creating a page for D&D monsters drawn from mythology. I would prefer that to simply adding it to a list of pop culture references. zorblek (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My thoughts would be to move the Medusa to part of the GMIPC article, whittling it down to a paragraph for starters, and then perhaps going through the list of D&D creatures and consider consolidating them to a small list, with individual entries given merit based on them. If we do a merge, what would be the criteria for starting the article? Would that be the province of Wikiproject D&D?
- Also, where would we go on Wikipedia to discuss the general notability of role-playing game monsters? It looks like precedent has been set for video games in terms of what's notable or not, and for fiction--but the RPG is sort of a hybrid between fiction and game, and I'm not sure that the rules are clear here. Keep in mind, I do think various topics about Dungeons and Dragons are valid and worthy of detail, but I simply don't think there should be a full article for every monster and treasure (spells, magic items, etc.) out there. I'd like to discuss this as I think it has some deeper issues that need resolving. JRT (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting and well written article. We dont have to rigorously apply GNG criteria to harmless topics such as this – as per the global consensus reflected by the fact that GNG is merely a guideline not a policy. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Online Party of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable unregistered party. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Online Party of Canada is in fact not yet officially registered but in the process of registration with Elections Canada. However, it is a notable Canadian political "website", as per the news articles and media coverage. Would it be possible to temporarily change its status to "website" (rather than official political party) and then simply revert it back to Federal political party once registration process with Elections Canada is complete? --J2xF (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You still need to prove it is notable, even as a website. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: evidence of notability [National Post](http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/25/marni-soupcoff-what-we-can-learn-from-the-online-party-of-canada/), [CBC news](http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2011/01/31/technology-internet-usage-based-billing.html) DigitalC (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: based on the sources listed in the comment above, this party meets WP:N. DigitalC (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the Pirate Party Australia, for example, is notable but not yet registered and thus still meets the political party criteria, right? --J2xF (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The subject meets WP:N with coverage in such publications as the National Post, the Windsor Star, and Le Journal de Québec; I've added citations for the latter two references. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources already available are enough to meet notability, and here are three more [24] [25] [26]. These others are of varying quality [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33], but I think they really help to assess how notable the party has become - frankie (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Undergrads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article lacks reliable sources that appear in third party publications. The current sources consist of a myspace page, two blogs, and the official website. I performed a Google news and books search, but it didn't turn up any reliable sources either. I believe this article fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant talk 02:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Program had an unremarkable run, but it aired on a major American network, thus it meets the barest of notability. However, it definitely needs to be reduced down to a stub; unremarkable cartoons like this do not need character lists, and there is no need for an entire paragraph devoted to a quixotic attempt to restart the series five years later by the program's creator (much less no sources that it has any 'cult' status). Nate • (chatter) 04:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't find any significant coverage in third party publications. This obviously doesn't mean there's none - per Mrschimpf, it aired on a major American network, and while notability isn't inherited from this, I'd expect from experience there to be some decent coverage of it somewhere. I'm going to see if anyone can find anything to verify notability. --Anthem 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [34]. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Finding sources is in many cases difficult due to the common name of the TV show. Still, I've managed to come up with a couple: [35] [36] [37] [38]. Notability might not be automatically inherited, but the series did have a run on MTV and a fairly long run on Teletoon (as reruns), both major networks. This article should definitely be kept, but some of the detail could go. Oreo Priest talk 11:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per above astute research on sources. -- Cirt (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freetown,_Massachusetts. v/r - TP 23:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of selectmen of Freetown, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of mostly non-notable Selectmen from a town with a population of 8,870 Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Hirolovesswords (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but trim. Since the selectmen were, for at least some part of the town's history, the equivalents of mayors, this this is the equivalent of a list of past mayors of a small city. I think Wikipedia would keep a list of former mayors as a notable sort of topic. The list is sourced, which is good -- good sourcing for these kinds of lists can be hard to come by. However, the details of recent town elections are cruft that does not belong in the encyclopedia -- trim that out of the article. --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. There is no "inherent notability" for every selectman from a small town. As a member of a governing committee, a selectman seems less notable than a mayor. Even in modern times, some of the winners only received a few hundred votes. The past practice in AFD is summarized at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Politicians which says in part: "Municipal politicians are not inherently notable just for being in politics, but neither are they inherently non-notable just because they are in local politics. Each case is evaluated on its own individual merits. Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". Mayors of smaller towns, however, are generally deemed not notable just for being mayors, although they may be notable for other reasons in addition to their mayoralty. Note that this criterion has not generally been as restrictive as the criterion for city councillors. City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo or London." Edison (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge? Could this be merged into the Freetown Massachusetts page? No one here is suggesting that these selectman are noteable enough for their own page, the question is whether the position of selectman in Freetown is notable enough that it warants a giant list of all these (for the most part) non-notable polititians. My opinion is no, but a short summary of the most pertanent info on this page could be merged into a selectman subsection of the Freetown, MA page. --MATThematical (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nicole Scherzinger. v/r - TP 23:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever U Like (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONG has not "been ranked on national or significant music charts,... won significant awards or honors or... been independently released as a recording by several notable artists". Notability tag resulted in no improvement. Redirect was revert with a statement that (essentially) yeah, it's notable, this is fine for now. SummerPhD (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to artist page. It fails notability per WP:NSONG there are no reliable sources to demonstrate the significance of the song and no claim of notability, eg charts, awards etc. However if the editor who reverted the previous redirect has confidence that it's notability can be established but doesn't have the time at the moment then I'll give my beneifit of doubt and suggest a redirect rather than a delete, because when that editor has time and has found reliable sources then he/she can revert the redirect rather than having to recreate the page.--Michaela den (talk) 10:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Maybe it can be added to in the future. At the moment it's not enough. Apparently it did chart in the US and Canada, but they were removed due to dead links. Mister sparky (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Chart has been added I have added the Canadian Hot 100 peak back into the article with another source. Therefore, this article now becomes notable per WP:NSONGS. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 13:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to artist page. It has charted, but there is not enough verifiable material for anything more than a stub, which is a complementary criterion of NSONGS. It doesn't need it's own article yet. MacMedtalkstalk 22:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 23:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GWS Motorsport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability provided 78.26 (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on there. This page was created literally two minutes before you put it up for AfD. I suggest you withdraw and at least give them a few hours, compadre. — chro • man • cer 04:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this page not speedied? It clearly meets A7 Business criteria Noformation Talk 05:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Speedying pages less than ten minutes old is bad form, noformation. I'm not saying this is worth inclusion, but give the newbies half a chance to figure things out before we zap them. — chro • man • cer 05:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While your point is certainly congruent with Wikipedia's mission of inclusion, it's unfortunately not realistic. Huggle and the various other vandalism tools specifically show us new pages so we can assess them immediately. If we don't speedy pages like this on the spot, they will fall into the background and likely never end up in our sites again unless someone familiar with WP rules happens to run across the article randomly. CSD is there only for pages that would obviously not pass and AFD and this page clearly fits in that category since there's nothing that could be changed (save for the company becoming notable in real life) that would allow this article to stay. Noformation Talk 06:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Speedying pages less than ten minutes old is bad form, noformation. I'm not saying this is worth inclusion, but give the newbies half a chance to figure things out before we zap them. — chro • man • cer 05:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why was this page not speedied? It clearly meets A7 Business criteria Noformation Talk 05:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And that would be precisely why notability is not a CSD criteria. A7 falls under assertions of notability, and since this article makes claims for competition in professional championships, it's not likely that a speedy would have been accepted. Regardless, this is an AfD debate now. — chro • man • cer 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you are correct, I was confusing this article with GWS Personnel, this article is more appropriate for AFD. With that said, I say delete, this company does not seem to pass notability reqs Noformation Talk 19:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And that would be precisely why notability is not a CSD criteria. A7 falls under assertions of notability, and since this article makes claims for competition in professional championships, it's not likely that a speedy would have been accepted. Regardless, this is an AfD debate now. — chro • man • cer 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this article makes claims for competition in professional championships - no actually it does not. None of the championships list are professional racing series. --Falcadore (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Falcadore. There may be some confusion, this team competes in the Bathurst 12 Hour, not the more well known Bathurst 1000. Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hodgy Beats. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER, consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dena Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Album that fails WP:NALBUM, and no reliable sources to establish said notability exist on the article. Being that it was made available for free download, it is highly unlikely that this album will ever chart. Though it is listed on both Billboard and AMG, there are no reviews for it on either. ArcAngel (talk) ) 07:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The review and Discogs link are added. L Trey (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Battlefield 2142 Vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:GNG no independent secondary coverage The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 00:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pros and cons
Before beginning, it is important to know that this article is new and thus under construction. PLUS, the game this article is related to is old (according to todays gaming standards) which means that not alot of players are currently active or remembering enough details of the game to contribute to this article.
Now the list
Pros :
- This article is a review on an important topic of a listed game of the game portal
- This article is clear and detailed
- This article supports the topic with images
- This article cites references
- This article is under construction and will be supported soon by more sources and more images
Cons :
- This article was written mostly by a single author
- This article doesn't present the under construction template
- This article currently doesn't have enough sources or images to be perfectly reliable
Solutions :
- Give some time to the author to improve the article
- Merge the article with its main article (Battlefield 2142) making it easier for other people to review it
- Delete the article
As the main author of this article and ex-expert player of Battlefield 2142, I would vote for the first two solutions which are, I think, closer to the guidlines of wikipedia. These solutions would also give time to other users who know the game to support this article with their own knowledge.
Please comment
If you have any questions related to Battlefield 2142 or more precisely about Battlefield 2142 Vehicles, please feel free to contact me directly on my talk page.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 05:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please also consider before voting taking a decision
As I see it, without the possible exception for the gunship description, there is nothing in there that gives precise specs on the vehicles nor than their place in the game or usage during a match. This is clearly not a how to guide on when, where or how to use the vehicles. The gunship specs description is an exception and is there because it is important to give a reason on why there are so many complaints on this vehicle in Internet litterature. This is only a short descriptive article on an important topic of bf2142. --Offiikart (Talk) 14:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Votes Discussion
:Keep Modified my stance, see below. The content is permissible under the same rationale that an article about characters in a comic book (say, this one), and Battlefield 2142 in itself is certainly notable (if only by extensive coverage from popular gaming websites that serve a wide audience), and one can also find plenty of contemporary attention to its vehicles (including, I believe, some actual criticism from said various websites in the field, non-scholarly of course). In terms of Wikipedia policy, to my mind the question is whether this is content better suited to Wikia, to be placed pod-inserted into the Battlefield Wikia, here), or whether it should just be mirrored there and this article allowed to stand for the same reasons countless other similar types of articles are (Watchmen, again). To the article author: This content should also be placed at Battlefield Wikia, which seems to be much heavier on the "modern warfare" installments and less detailed on 2142. Edwin Herdman (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I will take the time to place this content on BF wikia --Offiikart (Talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not a game guide, and the character analogy doesn't hold up here. For character lists, these are there for multi-part, serialized works or franchises, where there is a great deal of fiction and mythos that can be distilled down to explain the characters and often back by third party sources to explain their development and reception. This is a list of in-game weapons and vehicles for a single game, none having anywhere near the volume of fiction backing them. --MASEM (t) 12:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, leaning towards a deletion and slight expansion of main article texts. I agree that Wikipedia is not a game guide, and my intention is to make the subject comprehensible to readers, but not overburden it with minutae: Game tanks and walkers aren't like real life or anime tanks and mecha. Regardless of the current form of the article, the "not a game guide" policy does not provide a blanket objection to these sorts of articles, for exactly the reasons a list of characters may be appropriate. I have to agree it is excessive for the purposes of Wikipedia, but I feel I should expand my analysis of the situation for establishing such articles can be useful: The important point you bring up, that of "fiction and mythos...distilled down to explain" brings me back to my original point of comparison. Watchmen is not an exact comparison, but proves useful again, partly because it is a sufficiently original, alien setting; partly because the actual subjects are is considered notable. Now, I would argue that the Battlefield franchise's (and the Unreal Tournament's) handling of vehicles has been significant to the history of video games, and it does have a large impact on the public. Yet in order to qualify for its own article, the concepts need to be foreign enough to require further description. The "you can immediately drive anything" model of Battlefield (and Unreal Tournament, again) is not a point in favor of this being a topic requiring more detailed description - in fact the point worth mentioning (as with Codename Eagle or Battlefield 1942) of interest to the general reader is that this was different from the usual games of this era. I would argue that one can probably find quite a bit of attention being paid to the vehicles, but that's maybe half of the required criteria...and even this is sketchy at best. A good point of comparison: The articles for Unreal Tournament 2003 and 3 have very short (perhaps too short) sections on vehicles that perhaps could discuss in more depth some of the fundamental characteristics of how they behave, their impact on gameplay, and their impact on the world at large (if it can be demonstrated sufficiently well) - but adding all this (supposing sources can be found) would only be a few sentences, possibly less than my comment here! So the new direction for the main Battlefield article should be: How are vehicles different, and what is the overall impact on the game design (balancing, new gameplay opportunities - Titan already mentioned, pod launching from APCs should be as well because that's different from the usual first person shooter)? If anything this cries out for some quotes from the developers and the community reception. Did any balance issues affect the BF2142 community? Edwin Herdman (talk) 03:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE. If anything the content can be trimmed and merged with Battlefield 2142. --Teancum (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Merge I understand MASEM's and Teancum's point and agree on the fact that WP is not a game guide. This article is not really appropriate by itself BUT the informations presented in this article are necessary to understand and win an in-game match because 50-80% of BF2142 maps are based on vehicle play. Information should be retained and moved to main article. --Offiikart (Talk) 14:21, 15
- We're not here to tell people how to beat a game. The main article should give enough flavor to understand the general types of vehicles the game employs (particularly set in the future), but specifics of how certain vehicles behave or the like is completely inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give some examples of what part of this article is more than a simple basic description of the different vehicles? As I see it, without the possible exception for the gunship description, there is nothing in there that gives precise specs on the vehicles nor than their place in the game or usage during a match. This is clearly not a how to guide on when, where or how to use the vehicles. The gunship specs description is an exception and is there because it is important to give a reason on why there are so many complaints on this vehicle in Internet litterature. This is only a short descriptive article on an important topic of bf2142. --Offiikart (Talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not here to tell people how to beat a game. The main article should give enough flavor to understand the general types of vehicles the game employs (particularly set in the future), but specifics of how certain vehicles behave or the like is completely inappropriate. --MASEM (t) 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete because Wikipedia is not a game guide. The game itself of course is worth an article, but details on how to play the game belong on a gaming wiki, not Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 18:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at section 1.2 which is a copy of my comment on MASEM comment. --Offiikart (Talk) 16:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The topic has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. Community sites and forums are not reliable publications. Lists of gameplay items are not appropriate in game articles, let alone separate articles. Delete on the basis of WP:N, WP:V and WP:VGSCOPE. Marasmusine (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The subject of the article, a list of fictional vehicles from a video game, falls into what Wikipedia is not since Wikipedia is not a video game guide. That alone makes the article inappropriate, but the fictional vehicles also do not meet general notability guideline and the content is plot-only description of a fictional work. With no reliable third-party sources that address the list, there is no presumption that it should have a stand alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the two last comments which both say that it should not have a stand alone article: can a Delete be done by merging the content of this article into the main one? I know I repeat myself but the informations presented there are of great importance to understand the game, why it was played and why peoples stopped playing. Thanks for your comments --
Offiikart (Talk) 00:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it can, but it has to be condensed to provide not so much in-universe detail about the vehicles. A listing of vehicles as such is OK. JIP | Talk 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the other users who have given their opinion here are in agreement with this option, I am willing to do this as soon as I'm allowed to. --
Offiikart (Talk) 19:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't mind the vehicles being discussed in the game's article, in the form of prose not a list, providing it gives real-world context. For example: the opinions of game reviewers on specific vehicles. IGN talk about the grav-tank. Such content should naturally form part of the Gameplay and Critical Reception sections anyway. Marasmusine (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the other users who have given their opinion here are in agreement with this option, I am willing to do this as soon as I'm allowed to. --
- Yes it can, but it has to be condensed to provide not so much in-universe detail about the vehicles. A listing of vehicles as such is OK. JIP | Talk 17:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Final Decision
I greatly reduced the size of the article on my last edit today and tried to follow the helpful comments you guys did. I consider the information left there as important and it should not be to much precise in the how to way that made it inappropriate. Please comment this new version and if everything looks good I'll merge it in the main BF2142 article under the section Vehicles. If it still doesn't pass the test I'll let it go and ask for its deletion. Thank you
--
Offiikart (Talk) 14:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cynthia Stokes Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies WP:AUTHOR. Warden (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Her books seem to be widely held, which would satisfy WP:PROF #1. For example, the "refusing racism" book is held by >600 institutions and the "connecting" book by almost 300. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Week keep. GS h index of 9 helps WP:Prof#C1. Warden implies the need for a more comprehensive and helpful nomination. I agree. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep as the authro of several academic books, it is probably worth having an article on her. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merge discussion can continue on the talk page(s) if needed. Sandstein 06:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From the Caves of the Iron Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to pass WP:NALBUM. Currently uncited, album was released on a non-notable record label. Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I dispute that this album article should be deleted. I created the article (long ago) to make the Tony Levin discography more complete. While it may have been released on a non-notable label, it's by a very well known artist and furthermore the album is fairly uncommon, being recorded binaurally in an unusual environment. Should all other Tony Levin solo album articles be deleted too, since they were also released on his small record label? Ango74 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, leaning towards a merge The guidelines for albums seem to indicate that (unlike the guidelines for books with notable authors which may all be included) an album must itself be notable. Personally (IAR!), I am not swayed by that guideline; blasting this article would seem also to be rather counter-productive, for reasons including those [User:Ango74] mentioned. However, it may be preferable to reorganize and merge similar content, i.e. into a new article along the lines of "Tony Levin discography." That could suffer from length issues but may actually help the goal of not only managing but presenting the information. Edwin Herdman (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 05:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New jew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
None of these things are actually commonly known as "New jew". Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - At least two of these things (New Community Jewish High School and Sabra (person)) do appear to be commonly known as 'New jew' according to the references and a quick google search. JRheic (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which "references"? The article contains none. Also, what google hits did you mean? Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "New Jew" is a reasonable search term for the listed targets on this disambigation page. The New Community Jewish High School article already cites an article for this.[[39] Gann Academy in Boston is also sometimes called "New Jew", see for example [40][41][42]. Likewise the Weber School in Atlanta, see[43]. And Heeb Magazine carried the subtitle The New Jew Review. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This looks like a useful disambiguation page, especially for the magazine Heeb and for Sabra (person). Edwin Herdman (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to New Jew because there's no conceivable reason other than sloppiness to give 'jew' a lower-case 'j' – then keep per references above. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 18:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I almost punched this "keep" but this must be asked. Are there any sources that show that this is a common nickname for anything listed on this page? Only then could it be expected that one may use "New jew" (or "New Jew") as a search term. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 23:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Qua (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Album itself is not notable. Should be merged with Cluster (band). Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 21:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added a few sources - [51][52][53] - to the Allmusic review that was already referenced in the article. There looks to be enough significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 19:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The refs provided by Gongshow establish notability. MacMedtalkstalk 21:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.