Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 29

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< March 28 March 30 >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctors Hospital

edit
Doctors Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shamit Choksey

edit
Shamit Choksey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Part of a long series of articles on writers of the series "The Wire", most of whom appear to be notable; however this person has co-written one episode of this series and appears to have no other claim to notability. PROD removed without clear explanation. Black Kite 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article doesn't currently assert notability. If it is unable to do so then the content should be merged into List of The Wire writers and directors.--Opark 77 (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anthøny 23:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't meet notability requirements to me. I'm fine with the merge suggestion into List of The Wire writers and directors, though I think deleting outright is better than starting to expound details and external links about non-notable authors on that article. two ironic mentions of him i found: he wrote a positive review of the H3 hummer for a car web site and he's also a staff writer for a web site promoting hybrid vehicles. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - non-admin closure - Not closing as no-consensus as the Keep arguments significantly outweigh the delete votes - Peripitus (Talk) 07:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Still Burn Center

edit
Joseph M. Still Burn Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Totally non-notable Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (will eventually turn into WP:SNOW). Dustitalk to me 18:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raising Malawi

edit
Raising Malawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

AfD of organization which may not exist, no references, possible hoax. Completely fails WP:V, WP:RS does not assert WP:N NewAtThis (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge with Johnny Bravo, note that someone involved should do any merging. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JBVO

edit
JBVO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable television series which lasted for just over a year. Content is a bit poor and doubtful such a subject could be expanded with sourcing. treelo talk 23:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect/merge. Someone knowledgeable and/or involved should perform said merge. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ring road (Hastings)

edit
The Ring road (Hastings) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article lacks notability, it refers to a small section of a trunk road covered in another article. The article is mainly a list of villages the road passes through and I cannot see how that could be expanded. There is also some doubt that the section is called "The Ring Road". MortimerCat (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Pugetsound Program Library Exchange

edit
Apple Pugetsound Program Library Exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Call-A.P.P.L.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Val Golding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
William Martens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This seems to be a local Apple II user group that has at least four different articles about itself and its members. I am nominating all four of them together. These articles were all created by User:Callapple, a single-purpose account which is edted by the staff of the user group's magazine. Lovelac7 22:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE** Call APPLE was _AT THE TIME_ the major source of information about the Apple ][ computer - ANYWHERE. they were the source of almost all shared programs for the unit, as well as publishing many bits of documentation about the use of the apple i including some notes writen by steve the woz which apple themselves had not published. If y9ou want to delte them, you may as well delte mation of the apple ii. prepackaged software was in it's infancy when the apple ii came out and so call apple prvided a fill in of that gap, and probaly convinced many people that a home computer was viable, before IBM decided to look into the concept. As far as geography, I know I was a member, and I am closer to the East than the west coast, and in another country cmacd (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The group may not be "local", but that still does not make them notable. A Google search for "Apple Pugetsound Program Library Exchange" turns up 8,140 hits, and I have found nothing to show that A.P.P.L.E. is any more notable than dozens of other Apple II User Groups. Lovelac7 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apple Pugetsound Program Library Exchange, merge others into that article. A.P.P.L.E. was a hugely influential user group with professional-level publications. They are discussed in Roy A. Allan's A History of the Personal Computer, and numerous Google Books sources show them as the premier organization for supporting beginners in the Apple II, the largest

supplier of public domain programs for Apples, and in A , once one of the top Apple/Mac magazines. Given the pre-web nature of this organization it is unsurprising there is so little online, but what there is should be enough to show that it had a reach well beyond its local area. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - and concur with Dhartung. I realize personal attestations don't meet the standards for reliable sources, but as an Apple ][ owner (I've still got my Apple IIgs lying around mothballed) the group's activity was far from local. And as a pre-internet organist ion, the sources for this are going to be harder to come by on the web. -- Whpq (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A.P.P.L.E. was by far the largest Apple user group in existence in the 1980's and early 1990's. Their primary focus was the Apple II, but when the Macintosh was released, they began supporting it as well. While they were Seattle based, they had members all around the world. Their magazine, Call A.P.P.L.E., was professionally published and was up there in quality with other magazines of the time, such as Nibble, InCider, etc. A.P.P.L.E. is still the largest Apple II user group in existence and to delete their entry from Wikipedia would be incomprehensible to say the least. I suggest that before anybody suggests the deletion of a Wikipedia article, they do a little research first. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveODNet (talk • contribs) 03:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Višňové Tunnel

edit
Višňové Tunnel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was created in September of 2006, and has had essentially no edits since then except to wikify and stub-sort. Read the article and you will see it's terribly out of date, and Google is willing to debate its notability. Unfortunately, the article creater has left Wikipedia, so he could not be asked about this article. Delete unless proof of notability can be made. ~EdGl 22:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abdel-badeeh M. Salem

edit
Abdel-badeeh M. Salem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. Doesn't seem to match any of the criteria for notability as defined by WP:PROF. PROD has been suggested and removed on the basis that "heads of department are usually found to be notable". CultureDrone (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 07:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Davis and Lucas Scott

edit
Brooke Davis and Lucas Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The topic is essentially describing a plot element that does not seem to have garnered enough coverage from reliable sources to warrent it's own article. Relevent encyclopaedic information is already included on the the main page for the show (One Tree Hill (TV series)), the page for the main characters of the show (Characters of One Tree Hill), the individual pages for the two characters mentioned in the article (Brooke Davis and Lucas Scott) and the two pages for the actors that portray the characters (Sophia Bush and Chad Michael Murray). Guest9999 (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. Article asserts notablility, will tag article for expansion. . Dustitalk to me 18:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Voltage Software

edit
High Voltage Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divied By Friday

edit
Divied By Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article asserted some notability, so I removed the speedy tag, but still believe there are no reliable third-party sources available to assert notability Fritzpoll (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was The result of the debate was DELETE Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note for those looking in the history of this, closing Admin used the wrong template, correcting mistake.Dustitalk to me 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firestorm (robot)

edit
Firestorm (robot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own. At best, material can be included in Robot Wars Fritzpoll (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article was orginally tagged for speedy deletion, but that was contested. Thus the AFD. Tabercil (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teesra

edit
Teesra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has no sources, and after my own research I find absolutely no evidence whatsoever for its subject's existence. Opinions of experts in cricket welcome. Here follow my extended reasoning: This article has existed for quite a long time. It started off by saying that it was a delivery currently in creation by Saqlain Mushtaq. It was later updated with an example of a "Teesra" delivery - however, the example at no point credited the delivery as being a Teesra; the author of the edit was the one to reach that conclusion. To me this is clear original research. The supposed delivery has never been seen, and was announced around 4 years ago. It should also be noted that there is clear reason for a bowler to exaggerate or lie about a new delivery, and clear reason for a fan to do the same. There is absolutely no reason for there to be an article on a delivery that is very likely fictitious. For those without understanding of cricket, I hope you see that there are absolutely no references to this delivery existing and support this because of that simple fact. I hope my lack of knowledge with regards to deletion process does not damage this AfD. Apologies if any errors made during this process. Wikiyuvraj (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 3

edit
AfDs for this article:
Battlefield 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL (again). Although a PDF-file has supposedly been leaked, that both the article's sources use, the article is still based on rumors and has no place on Wikipedia. I also have reasons to believe that some of the facts in this PDF are actually about Battlefield Heroes (which was neither official at the time of the "leak"), and not this game. The article can be re-created when the game becomes officially announced. SBIT (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - both sources quoted use the same single primary source. In a sense, this means that they are basically based on a single source, so that in essence the citations are the same. That the source they use is not officially confirmed ("EA remains tight-lipped" from the primary source here) means that the primary source was not reliable, so the secondary sources are also not reliable. Thus the sources fail WP:V and the article as a whole fails per WP:CRYSTAL Fritzpoll (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the same opinion as Fritzpoll. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 20:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That article is one of the two sources of Battlefield 3, and it seems to use the same PDF. Again, I believe that some of the information in this PDF (such as the announcement date, that's clearly been passed now) is actually information about Battlefield Heroes and not BF3. Hence the information in that article is not reliable. SBIT (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Shav--- I mean Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of US governors with facial hair

edit
List of US governors with facial hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If anyone can explain the significance of facial hair on governors, then maybe they can describe it at the gubernatorial facial hair article, but I don't see it myself. In fact, what I see is a list of people who were governors at a time when facial hair was fashionable, and a few others. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Any number of articles in this "encyclopedia" is unencyclopedic. Specifically, just about any list. Wikipedia should be inclusive and improved over time, not simply dismissed and deleted at the whims of a few or even majority of editors.Metallurgist (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Pedro (talk · contribs) under CSD G4. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 21:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Reid

edit
AfDs for this article:
Anton Reid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From - D.A.Penniall talk —Preceding comment was added at 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Gadsby

Anton's page is no different to Matthew Gadsby's page, I created it as a profile page for a football who passed away like Matthew and a few others, this is not a memorial page where people leave there comments, the quotes where from staff from after the tragedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DiddyPWFC (talk • contribs) 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close - no rationale provided for deletion and WP:NOT#DICT does not apply. This is a stub not a dictionary entry. Canley (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Rooney

edit
Darrell Rooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

empty Berserkerus (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you planning to offer a deletion rationale? The article, though a stub, is not empty. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Para 1 of WP:NOT#DICT.--Berserkerus (talk) 00:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio by User:Pedro. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emma burgess

edit
Emma burgess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Refs mostly promotional or plain bio write-ups. Taroaldo (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites sources from URB Magazine, the LA Times, and All Music Guide. This article should not be deleted. (talk) 13:28, 29 March (PDT)

Comment per section 10 of the musicians criteria in WP:MUSIC Emma has had songs placed in major network TV show's including ABC Family's "Wild Fire" and CBS' "Cold Case". Additionaly, persuant to section 12 of the musicians criteria, Emma's song "Big Break" received radio play on Indie 103.1 a major radio station in Los Angeles, owned by Entravision, a major radio conglomerate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaedenmas (talk • contribs) 20:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tetievsky

edit
Tetievsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I seriously doubt the veracity of this article. For one thing, I believe that there'd be books galore on the subject if there actually had been a 15-year old mobster boss in Russia at the turn of the 20th century. Of the two references provided, one is from a website that would probably not have any interest in that story and a site-specific Google search indicates that they never did publish anything on this subject. There's also a broken link to Britannica.com. After verification, there's no such article on Britannica. Compound that with a fairly far-fetched rags-to-riches meteoric rise of a 10-year old penniless orphan, death by leukemia at a time where it was still diagnosed only rarely, a father which grooms his son to be a mob-boss in his early teens. This just doesn't make sense and unless someone can come up with very solid references, we have to assume it's a hoax. Pichpich (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brouillards

edit
Brouillards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is way too short to be worth anything here, IMHO. I think that it is best to integrate this material into the main article on the Debussy Preludes. I am going to nominate the other Debussy individual Preludes stubs for deletion as well, when I have a chance to get to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJRafe (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Please use the afd2 template when creating discussions, and remember to sign your comments. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)*Comment An article being short is not a reason for deletion. The proposed merge would, if all the elements of the Preludes were written up become potentially unwieldy. I think the question that needs to be answered is if there is sufficient information for there to be a spinout article like this Fritzpoll (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the nominator is proposing a mass merge, the best method is to use the merge templates -- this is "Articles for Deletion" not "Articles for Merging." That said, per editorial policy, being short is not a problem in itself. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - per above, the nominator has not shown grounds for deletion. Being short is not a deletion reaso. It may not even be grounds for merging - there the question is not "is there only a little here", but "can more be written to make this a valid article". The answer to the latter question, in this case, is almost certainly "yes". For that reason, I'd be weakly against a merger. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; we have a quorum. No changes, same with the others, will leave alone. DJRafe (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The lately added references to newspaper reports do not include links, so the depth of the coverage cannot be evaluated. Sandstein (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Network of European Technocrats

edit
Network of European Technocrats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article on a European offshot of the Technocracy movement. It is entirely self-sourced, and appears to be the work exclusively of single purpose accounts associated with the movement. Google finds 57 unique hits - http://www.google.co.uk/search?q="Network of European Technocrats"&start=80&sa=N - and there is no evidence that this is significant independent of the Technocracy Movement, which is itself not actually that important. I can't actually find the claim of notability within this article, but the owners will obviously dispute deletion so it needs to go to AfD. This looks to me to be vanispamcruftisement. Guy (Help!) 17:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is noted.. that Hibernian who publicly states that his actual name is Ross Murphy (on his wikipedia user page) is a registered user of the NET forum... the actual organization of which Andrew Wallace (Isenhand wiki editor and creator of this article) is the Director of.. and how this could regard to the NET article. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65 Network of European Technocrats - Ross Murphy user page. It is also noted that Technocracy movement article would also be a good article to consider being put up for articles for deletion... as it seemingly was also mostly only an avenue to promote the NET article... and in actuality there is no Technocracy movement aside from the perception of NET and its users (About six active bloggers or forum commentators). The original group (Technocracy Incorporated) of which I myself am not a member... is still around and advocating their program... of which basically nothing resembles the original research of NET. The two groups have nothing in common as to ideas. Only shared terms adopted by the NET group.. and the NET group while using Technocracy Incorporated as its jumping off point... also says themselves repeatedly that they are unconnected.

It is also noted now that editor Isenhand has a commercial self published book out that he advertises in references on the NET site at the cost of around $36.00. Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering... Because Isenhand editor here.. is the author Andrew Wallace and Isenhand is continually making an effort to edit the NET article with edits that conform to his book.. which is offered on NET and which is highly conjectural and speculative with original research.. in my opinion.. it may seem that editor is attempting to maintain with edits here... material that conforms to his commercial book.. is that not something that has to be scrutinized here in the context of other issues ?

It is noted also that Ross Murphy and Isenhand may form a kind of consensus as they edit in tandem to control certain aspects of Technocracy related material on wikipedia. This is a very distinct pattern in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I told you before that I'm not actually a member of NET, but if we want to start "noting" things, then how about the fact that you are only really here because you have a long running personal and ideological vendetta against NET, and care nothing for actual Wiki rules. --Hibernian (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. I am strictly going by the facts as I view them in this situation. You are entitled to your opinion though. skip sievert (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of that matters skip. Articles should follow from what the sources say and authors should leave personal problems out it. Hibernian, Kolzene , myself and the other editors have no “control” (why are you so obsessed with controlling things?) over the article. It is open for anyone to edit, even you. Hibernian, Kolzene, myself etc. just cooperate, which is what we are supposed to do on wiki and we don’t always agree with each other (see for example how we all worked together over splitting the article). We work from the sources and put information in that we find in either primary or secondary sources keeping our own personal opinions or problems we might have with the other editors or their organisations out of it. Isenhand (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


How is it that none of that matters Isenhand.. when your group (NET) of which you are the Director of.. enforce edits and in my opinion also has been enforcing original conclusion information of their own design? Your group wrote the entire NET Article. You yourself originated it from scratch...which would seem to violate writing about yourself guideline. This does fly in the face of the most basic wiki guide lines does it not ? The person you mention above.. Kolzene is also a registered user on your site Network of European Technocrats http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=254&Itemid=65 Profile page Network of European Technocrats - Kolzene. Does this not compound the aspects that a group of people are writing about themselves and controlling information? What does it mean when the group that you direct may be making up the sources as they please and feel they own the article in the sense of not allowing for things to be at least partially corrected within the article by an outside person ? I do believe that the article was split as a type of advertising vehicle only. For that reason Technocracy movement in my opinion should also be an article to be looked at for deletion because it is merely a construct to support the contention of NET being a Technocracy movement element. A closed loop of special interest does not represent a consensus, only a group that has vested interest in a certain presentation. skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This page should not be deleted.

The article does not have spam or advertising nor any copyright infringing material.

It is not a hoax, as it refers to a legitimate organisation formed in Sweden in 2005 and registed with the tax authorities in 2006 (thus not a vanity page). Its has an international membership from many European counties but also from outside Europe (see the translations of the page into other languages for the scope of interest). The organisation conducts and organises one the ground activities mainly in Europe. The organization forms an important part of the modern Technocracy movement and has been referred to an linked on forums and blogs (thus has relevance and interest to people outside the technocracy movement).

It has secondary and primary sources (see Gunnarsson, Olle. "Författarskaper utmanar", Västerbottens-Kuriren, 18 February 2008, p. 22. (Swedish) and Emanuelsson, Erik (3 Nov 2006). Det teknokratiska idealsamhället. Noden. Retrieved on 19 June 2007). The organisation has been mentioned in papers and magazines and its ideas have been on national TV giving it an international coverage (I was one TV twice in the UK taking about NET's ideas). Some of the relevant primary and secondary sources have been cited (but are often removed by one editor and the Noden link is down at the moment due to changes in their offices).

It does not fall into the catagoriy of Overcategorization.

It is not gibberish nor nonsense as it refers to a legitimate organisation. The information is correct (unless altered by one edits for example NET was formed in 2005. The registration refers to registration for Tax purposes not the actual creation of the organisation.).


The organistion is note worthy, For example it has a peer reviewed research paper published as well as having articles published in peer reviewed magazines. (see for example : "Multi-Agent Negotiation Strategies Utilising Heuristics for the Flow of AGVs". Andrew Wallace. In the International Journal of Production Research. Vol 45. No. 2. 15 January 2007. Pages 309 – 322.). The organisiton has been referred to in newspapers as well.

The request for meditation link refers to a problem with one specific editor (there were two attempts to sort out the problem with this one editor and they both failed – thus the problem remains). All the other editors involved with the technocracy pages as well as other edits have had problems with this on specific editor and have dropped out editing the page because of the those problems. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Technocracy_movement_2.

BTW, is this just aimed at the Englsih site or all the other languages as well? Isenhand (talk) 06:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources to articles, news stories, research, etc that focus on this organization, not just mention it in passing. That's what is lacking, no substantial evidence of notability has been offered. If someone is removing sources, provide the diffs to their addition here, please. Lar: t/c 17:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I did, see Gunnarsson, Olle. "Författarskaper utmanar", Västerbottens-Kuriren, 18 February 2008, p. 22. (Swedish) and Emanuelsson, Erik, "Det teknokratiska idealsamhället". Noden. 3 Nov 2006. Both are newspaper articles about NET and its director. The second one was online but was taken down. I know there was some others as well and I'll try and find them this week. Isenhand (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another ref: "Med vetenskapens välsignelse" in Fältbiologen, nr 2. Page 9. 2005. Fältbiologe is a newspaper for biologists and the article is about NET. Isenhand (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It is noted that Isenhand the wikipedia editor above.. is also Andrew Wallace the NET director and also the originator of the article Network of European Technocrats. By saying that.. I am not revealing anything that is not well known public information. Andrew Wallace (who is mentioned prominently in the NET article... written by himself mostly) has used the pen name of Isenhand for many years. In other words the significant aspects about this article all seem to revolve around some one who is writing about themselves and their activity on a commercial website. The above statement.. Both are newspaper articles about NET and its director. end quote.. Isenhand - this could easily be perceived wrongly if that information were not known here. skip sievert (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That’s irrelevant, skip. Wikipedia is open to anyone to change. That’s why I don’t ask for you to be banned and wiki remains one of the few places you haven’t been permanently band from. All that matter is that the content of the articles follows from the sources (rather than your opinion of the world). Isenhand (talk) 05:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Here are a few things that may make for interesting reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPA Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Here is another. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Some may find that interesting also. The one below also has some information that seems to apply in it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This article also is full of pertinent information in my opinion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OWN Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

It is noted that something as simple as removing the repetition about how and where NET recruits members from.. that is repeated twice in the article (a seeming editing error) is put back in the article.. with the Isenhand edit. It may be note worthy also that in Isenhands haste to revert any edits in the article in question.. even spelling mistakes corrected... are reverted to being misspelled again. skip sievert (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mink Mucker

edit
Mink Mucker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable neoglism, no reliable sources. Wikipedia is not for things made up on a golf course one day. Prod was removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F90 (Gun)

edit
F90 (Gun) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If this exist, it is a non-notable ficitional Gundam weapon. The article states that "F90 is the more popular and well-known name of the gun Formula 90", but the linked article refers to Formula 90 as a mobile suit not a gun. The photo in the article is a airsoft version of the FN P90, which has nothing to do with Gundam. BlueAzure (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But F90 search it on google is a gun which also appeared on a game PS2 :Socom 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaring Siren (talk • contribs) 17:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Philippines

edit
AfDs for this article:
Billboard Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Songs that reached number one in Billboard Philippines Hot 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This page has already been deleted twice, as it is a blatant unofficial ripoff of Billboard magazine. It is not notable, as it appears to be a fan creation with dubious sources. I put this up for speedy, as it was speedy deleted only two weeks ago, but it apparently doesn't meet the criteria, which is why it's going for AfD. SKS2K6 (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what WP:SALT is for. Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Freaky Bean Coffee Company

edit

}}}

The Freaky Bean Coffee Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Coffee company written up by an SPA. Does four locations in Maine, with two more opening in May 2008 make them notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepWeak keep needs cleaning up, but has some independent sources to assert notability Fritzpoll (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now but concerned that the references are artificially inflated. There are two links to the same article, another that does not go to an article about the company, a spamlink for the designer of the logo, and a blog from the companies own website. The Press-Herald article puts them on the edge for notability, but without any other reliable sources, it seems borderline. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To address some of the concerns, yes, this is my first posting, as I just joined a couple weeks ago. The last time it was deleted because an editor thought it was not neutral enough. I have condensed what I wrote, and resubmitted. While I plan on creating more articles, I don't feel like having all of them deleted before I find out the politics of Wikipedia. References have been cleaned up and added to. Adding a link to the designer shows reference of where it was created, not spam. Also, article link from freakybean.com is not a blog, but a selection of articles they have been included in. Their site does not have a blog. --Magicmonkeymeat (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, this is a hard one. Seems like it might be notable in some way, but I'm not sure. Let's see if we might can get some more references if possible. Izzy007 Talk 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's not exactly world news, but it certainly hits state news regularly enough based on a brief survey I did on google - results talking about it's latest expansion, about it's takeover of the Maine Roaster's business in 2007, about it's eco-friendly image, etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coanda-1910 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Streetz

edit
Streetz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article about a song that hasn't been released yet. Tan | 39 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If anyone really wants this userified to their space, they can ask me directly... — Scientizzle 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries whose flag has a star

edit
List of countries whose flag has a star (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An indiscriminate collection of information and essentially nothing more than an image gallery, which I'm pretty sure is against policy. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unencyclopedic, and it is just an image gallery, not even really a list. I could see it being a category, but as an article it is more or less useless. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:NOT Doc StrangeMailbox Orbitting Black HoleStrange Frequencies 17:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep A perfect example of an article that rolled off the presses too soon. There is room for someone to "save" the concept by adding information to put the colorful pictures into context. Identifying which nation each flag comes from would be an obvious improvement (what were you thinking?), although that wouldn't be enough to justify an article. In the world of vexillology, or whatever the study of flags is called, there are published sources that explain the images chosen for a nation's banner. We know what the 50 stars on the American flag stand for, but what about the 8 stars on Venezuela's flag? We know why Israel's flag has a six-pointed star, but why for the African nation of Burundi? (Those of us who have seen that flag always assumed that they were regular stars). And I'm sure all the Aussies can tell us why their flag uses seven-point stars, but why Jordan? My advice to Bezuidenhout is to userfy your article. You're going to have a lot of people voting to delete because it's not much of an article at the moment, although I suspect that you have a good reason for counting the points on the stars. It can be a great article as long as you fix it up. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even think the flags are comparable by number of stars, are they? I mean, don't the stars have different meanings for each flag? Gary King (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/userfy - In some ways, I think this could become a reasonable article. It certainly isn't at the moment. Per Mandsford, I think it would be good if some actual text was added to put them in context, but until this is done, it will be difficult to judge whether or not it deserves an isolated article, or if the information is more useful split among several existing articles Fritzpoll (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a gallery. Subject is somewhat indiscriminate, though I see possibility for it being a category Think outside the box 19:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indiscriminate. This could maybe be re-done as a category, containing each article on "Flag of X", but there's no reason for a list on this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Userfy. Just a gallery of images, with no content explaining why having a star in the flag is in any way significant. (And yes I know it is, but this topic is likely covered elsewhere. I'm willing to change my vote to keep, however, if the article is expanded to include such information. Even then, though, it might be a tough job making it sound notable. Additional: I've changed my "vote" to userfy as reading some of the comments here have cast doubt as to whether this was intended to be a full-fledged article and not a work-in-progress. 23skidoo (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the subject is notable, it should have a name that concentrates on the flags, not on the stars. I don't see how the subject is a useful list; it seems more the indiscriminate collection. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - As per Mandsford, this page is really just a gallery of flags, I can just see the usefullness of it, but really it needs some text to explain what flags these are. Also a whole list of "flags with a star" exists at Commons:Gallery of flags with stars, which is linked to in the list of flags template at the bottom of the List of flags article. --DWRtalk 22:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont Question My Heart

edit
Dont Question My Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wrestling-song used for the ECW show. D.M.N. (talk) 16:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per A7 - the article described a club/team nancy (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester Skate Scene

edit
Leicester Skate Scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I doubt this is notable enough to have an article. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Proctor

edit
Bob Proctor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This particular page was deleted three times based on our speedy deletion criteria. Upon resurfacing a 4th time in January, the speedy was declined and tags were added to attempt to improve the verifiability and sourcing for this WP:BLP. The only "improvements" to the page, as far as I can read, are adding resume-language. Upon searching in google, google news, etc, I remain unconvinced that third party, reliable sources exist to keep this article. There are many many google hits, just doesn't seem to be anything beyond press-release quality or their ilk. Suggesting Deletion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) There are 486,000 results in Google for Bob Proctor.
2) Immediately after watching The Secret, in which Bob Proctor appears, I wanted to learn more about him. I am not the only viewer of The Secret and millions all over the world have watched this motivational movie. Me and many other people would like to know about him, and therefore a Wikipedia article would invoke information into it. True, the article as it is now lacks information and does not stand as coherent encyclopedic article, but that's why we have the STUB tag. We mark the article as a stub so that people and editors would improve the article. Sometimes I feel that editors here just like the fun of deleting articles. You cannot delete Bob Proctor from the knowledge of the public, he is known and notable enough, and Google and Youtube prove it.
3) The fact that the article was deleted three times before -- and returned three times -- proves that people want this article back. Don't go against the public. We want Bob Proctor in, and he will be created again, sooner or later. Tag the article as a stub and the public will be content. Good information about him will pour in eventually. John Hyams (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By "factor of over 500" you mean 345,000 hits of the exact phrase "Bob Proctor". Well, that's a lot. If you couldn't find a source, that does not mean that he is not notable, and that people are not looking for info about him. As I already explained above, people are looking for info about him, and that's what Wikipedia is for, to provide encyclopedic information about notable topics/personalities. John Hyams (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, as of today there are 829 hits for the exact phrase, as you will see if you follow my link above. To find the real number of Google hits you have to scroll down all the hits to see exactly how many there are rather than rely on Google's grossly over-inflated estimate. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well you've used Google.co.uk, and I've used Google.com, which by far contains more, as you can see here: [4] John Hyams (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, you have to page to the bottom of the list [5]. That was 826 on google.com when I just tried it. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete - hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawthorne Hawkins

edit
Hawthorne Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's a hoax, people. I made this up a year and a half ago due to boredom on my old account (in which I disregarded WP's policies) and thought it had already been deleted. I have since made a new account and changed my ways, with over 3,000 edits to my name, and have been helping Wikipedia since November 2006. I was surprised it actually lived this long (not that I bothered to check). Sorry about all this. I've gone a year and a half without vandalism, and no vandalism on this account. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete more nn Locsin fancruft from Gerald. Sarah 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angel Locsin's Commercials and Endorsements

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Angel Locsin's Commercials and Endorsements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A fancruft article. Merging it with Angel Locsin is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Starczamora (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. Borderline on WP:MUSIC, but good third-party sources tip it over the edge. Black Kite 11:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Phoenix

edit
Naomi Phoenix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Naomi Bolster/Freeth/Phoenix - singer whose claim to fame (single of the week in Melody Maker) seems to be only supported by archived promotional pages. Possibly notable with better sourcing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 14:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and expand. References in Melody Maker and the Birmingham newspaper cited push this into the "non-trival third-party references" category of notability. I'm saying weak, though, because as noted most of the sources are of the promotional variety, and Birmingham source is poor as it's behind a subscription wall (better to cite issue-and-page for the print version in that case). Has potential for expansion with additional sourcing. No prejudice towards this being renominated in 6 months if it hasn't been improved. 23skidoo (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been difficult to source online material as it is hard to find it online from the late 1990s. Naomi has in fact been in Melody Maker several times (18 Oct 1997, 06 Dec 1997 (Full Page article), 29 Nov 1997 (featured twice in edition including Single of the Week)). Only the Single of the Week has been mentioned in wiki article as considered notable. Gut Records who are a major independent record label in the UK (who Naomi was signed to) refers to the Single of the Week accolade on it's website (which I have linked to). As Gut Records are a large respectable label, I wouldn't refer to that link and references as just promotional material as it carries considerable weight. The only other possible thing I can do is upload a copy of the article if I get a copy? Is this possible to be done considering copyright issues? There is no Melody Maker website anymore since merging into NME. She has also been featured in other national magazine titles (Music Week - 22 Nov 97, Sky Magazine - Dec 1997, Marie Clare - Dec 1997, Smash Hits - Jan 1998, TV Hits - Feb 1998 & The Big Issue - July 1998. I have not mentioned these in the main wiki article as I did not think they were relevant like the Melody Maker single of the week article. I have given a link on the wiki article to Naomi's official website (archived) that lists all the publications that she has appeared in. She has also been on a BBC2 Music File show (see http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.search&q=naomi music file ) and also the Channel 5 Melinda Messenger show (see http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4488204 ). I did not put these on the wiki article as I did not think they were too relevant although they are notable. The link to the Birmingham Mail article was to prove that she went to the same school as chart topping folk duo Nizlopi and nothing more (that fact linking Naomi to Nizlopi is more notable than it being a regional paper) I appreciate the comment that it is a subscription web-page but again, I struggled to find free web articles to show that point. The relevant text on this article can actually be seen on the Google search text here ( http://news.google.com/archivesearch?client=safari&rls=en&q=naomi trinity school leamington&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&tab=wn ). There are actually 3 newspaper articles that are displayed giving the relevant fact. I appreciate it is not the best way to do it but it proves the point. I don't think a Google search would be adequate for a wiki article but I hope it gives those reading this response that the article is credible, it just needs improving. I would appreciate guidance as to how to improve this wiki article to prevent deletion in light of the problems I have come across in referencing this article from the internet alone. DisasterJunkie (talk) 16:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Multiple albums on significant independent label pass WP:BAND. Also there's nothing at all wrong with the Birmingham Evening Mail reference. There's absolutely no requirement that sources should be available online, and the issue date is quoted for verifiability. The other print publications can also be used as sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My initial Google search made it look a bit questionable, but if the Melody Maker and newspaper print references get added to the article, that satisfies the concerns I had about it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Melody Maker article in question does have the issue date on the wiki article. I could improve the article further by supplying the page number for an additional reference to the Gut Records and S&M Management web references already provided. I will look for this. I have additionally added links on the wiki article to NME articles which are available online, links to the BBC2 and Channel 5 show which both feature Naomi. I have also added to the article reference showing who else was on the Gut Records roster at the time Naomi was there (there were only 7 artists then and in addition to Naomi, it included Tom Jones, Jimmy Somerville and Space). A Gut Records link is provided to show this. Is this sufficient now to keep the wiki article pending further improvements? DisasterJunkie (talk) 08:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Murphy

edit
Rhys Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The player doesn't seem to have recieved the significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required by the primary notability criteria. Having only played for youth and reserve teams the individual also does not seem to meet the specific criteria for athletes. Guest9999 (talk) 13:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was snowball delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE nancy (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 steps to effectively tap online Medical Transcription projects

edit
5 steps to effectively tap online Medical Transcription projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mangalore people

edit
List of Mangalore people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced listing of everybody in town. Alexf42 10:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

talk:Pharaoh of the Wizards|talk]]) 16:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Sunshine, doesn't work that way in an AfD. Noroton (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Black Kite 20:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SS Kiche Maru

edit
SS Kiche Maru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence that a ship with the name SS Kiche Maru existed or sank Fg2 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above links are noted on the talkpage, but are also extremely isolated, mostly non-reliable and no reason to suppose they haven't been taken in by a hoax. However, this appears to not be a hoax; the problem is one of transliteration. See this article from the New York Times in 1918, which refers to the ship in question as the Kicker Maru. The date is, as speculated, actually Sep 28, not 22. Relata refero (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than delete the article, would it be an idea to change the date in the article (22nd) to the date that the reference included in the article says (28th) or include both dates (with a reference for the 22nd and words to the effect that there are two dates given by sources)? If there are sources for alternative names that could be included too (or the article renamed if there is a source for the correct name). If there are sources saying it's a hoax they could also be included. All this would make for a better article which, in my opinion, would be better than a deleted article. Ha! (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The September 28 date is in some books, September 22 in others, but the first report in newspapers (at least as found on newspaperarchive.com) is a Thursday, September 26, 1912 article that refers to the disaster as having happened the previous Sunday (September 22). The contemporary source was two days before 9/28. Mandsford (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does appear to be the subject of secondary independent sources, the core criterion of WP:N. Print sources are valid (remember books?). There does seem to be question of the English language spelling. That's not a deletion issue. --Oakshade (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Neutral - I just don't know at this point and don't want to go down in history advocating keeping something that might be proven to be a historic hoax. If there's something more substantial showing this information is true, I'll change to keep. --Oakshade (talk) 06:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hoax wouldn't be my first guess; rather I suspect it's a long-running mistake. It's easy to imagine a scenario such as this: 1000 was the death toll for the typhoon, nationwide, and someone in the chain—a reporter, wireless operator, or editor—mistook it for the death toll of one ship, with the Titanic disaster being so recent. Fg2 (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I started the article, although someone else appears to have added comments about the Kobayashi Maru on Star Trek, something I've never heard of ("maru" is a Japanese word for ship). It was a real disaster in 1912, and you can read about it in any almanac. Look in the index under "disasters". Not sure where the nominator came up with the "no evidence that it ever existed" conclusion.... Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm getting closer to something here. Japan's official natural disasters list counts a September, 1912 wind storm as the 24th worst disaster in modern history for that country with 1000 dead. We have NewspaperArchive showing one or two wire stories (hard to tell) for ~9/28/1912 as reporting 1000 dead from the loss of a K-(mumble) Maru. I'm betting the reporting of 1000 dead matches the storm deaths overall, with the loss of the K-(mumble) Maru a humble trawler of some kind (two naval vessels were wrecked in the same storm, though), confused as a passenger ship, perhaps breathlessly echoing the Titanic earlier that year. --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Those of you who don't read Japanese might have missed a comment by Oda Mari on Talk:SS Kiche Maru. She wrote, "... looking at the list there's no ship similar to the name Kiche." The words "the list" link to a page at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Government of Japan. Here is the link. The page lists maritime disasters. The only entry for 1912, apart from the sinking of the Titanic, is the sinking of the Umegaka on September 22. For comparison, the entry for October 11, 1910 is for an event in which 41 people died. I'm unable to figure out why they would omit the Kiche-maru, in which more than a thousand died, while listing another in which 41 perished. Another page at the MLIT site, here, is about Japan's important maritime disasters. It has only one entry for the year Taisho 1 (which was 1912, following the death of Emperor Meiji). That was the sinking of the Umegaka on September 22, 1912. Like Mari, I just don't see any references to any ship with a name remotely resembling "Kiche" sinking in that month. There was a typhoon then (see this report from the JMA). Can anyone find further information? Fg2 (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (1) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" is the first line of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. It doesn't matter if the statement "The Kiche Maru was a Japanese steamship that sank" is true or not. What matters is that there is a reliable source that makes that statement. (2) The evidence so far for the alternate point of view ""There was no Japanese steamship called Kiche Maru, that sank" is original research. It might be completely true (in the realist sense of the word) but if there isn't a reliable source for the statement or fact, it's original research. If a reliable source can be found that puts forward that view then it's no longer original research. (3) The statement "No evidence that a ship with the name SS Kiche Maru existed or sank" is demonstratably not true. There definitely is a question over whether there is any credible/reliable evidence though. (4) I think it comes down to this. Is the source provided (linked to at Google Books above) a reliable source or not and is it sufficient (assuming no more can be found). Note that the article can be written to reflect all the relevant aspects, including that there is no evidence of it in the usual official maritime sources, that it's an often(?) used trivia question, and the confusion over it's name and date. Whether that can be done without making it too vague to be in an encyclopedia or not is a different story Ha! (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, any rule that "forces" us to include information just because it's in the World Almanac when we know it's wrong (which is what I think now) is a bad rule. I am very surprised that in 96 years there has been no Japanese notice that Western reference books include a bogus shipwreck (or in other words, I suspect there must have been, but it is buried somewhere and only in Japanese). My gut is telling me that the best outcome here would be if we had an article on the 1912 storm (which doesn't seem to be regarded as a typhoon), which a mention in there that this story got into the Western press. Otherwise I'm reluctant to have an article about something that we know doesn't exist if we can't put it into proper context. This is similar to the Schooner Jenny problem; see also phantom island, fictitious entry. --Dhartung | Talk 06:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. There are reasons for this, and one of them is that some guy who did some research for five days does not get to decide 'truth'. All we do is catalogue information that is available to us; the information that we have via the World Almanac, correct or incorrect, is verifiable, and thus should be included. Until you publish a paper regarding this, you are in no position to decide 'truth'. If anything, this is a 'we should have a 'maybe this doesn't really exist' section', although I'm sure it would quickly get tagged for the WP:OR that it would have to be. If you've done anything at all, you've merely furthered the verifiability and notifiability of the material by being able to do such research on it. Celarnor Talk to me 12:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an article about the typhoon in question (give me a title and a few days and I'll start one). The article as it stands is already guilty of WP:OR; the claim that Kiche Maru = Kieko Maru = Kioko Maru = Kicker Maru rests on Wikipedians' assumption that all mentions of "steamships with one thousand passengers sinking" on that date are about the same vessel. But if you insist on accepting that there's one steamship "Kiche Maru" which sank on that date and that steamship carried 1,000 passengers (despite extremely flimsy evidence), you don't really have any grounds to deny there are two or three or four such steamships with really similar names, especially since it is well-verified that the extreme weather conditions on that date sank multiple ships.
So that would leave us with four entries about steamships which sank on that date. However, I don't see that any of those alleged steamships have "non-trivial coverage in multiple sources" required by WP:N for us to have an independent article on the topic. The "Kiche Maru" gets forty-one words in print (other Google hits which refer to this alleged ship are forums, "this day in history" pages, Wikipedia mirrors, and similar sites which fall outside the bounds of WP:RS). The others get even less than that --- as little as one sentence fragment. cab (talk) 06:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Fg2's comment that it's a long-running mistake. First of all, “Kiche” does not sound like Japanese. I'd like to ask those who want to keep the article. Please show me the kanji of the ship's name. As far as I searched maritime disasters in Japan, there was no Kiche maru and its accident. Why there is no Japanese source? Oda Mari (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as per the comments I've already made (enough sources for notability, verifiability not truth, article can be expanded to address concerns) Ha! (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added and linked some references [6].Ha! (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's another (not useful but slightly interesting) source here [7] (3rd one down titled Bird Lore) that leads to a Google Books snippet that mentions the "The schooner Kioko Maru, which left the plume hunters upon Lee Hermes Island,about eighty miles southeast of Midway Island, was never heard of after her..". It's no use for the article as that's all there is in the snippet and when you try to read the snippet, the excerpt Google have scanned doesn't actually say what the search says it says (if that makes sense) but I thought I'd mention it as it describes the Kioko Maru as a scooner. Ha! (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would dearly love to see a Japanese source, although I can't read Japanese. The jp.wikipedia doesn't have an article, but it's relatively small compared to en.wikipedia. That the disaster is listed in reference sources is undeniable, and there are contemporary news reports to show that it was reported at the time. I started the article because, let's face it, we Americans have a tendency to dismiss even 1,000 deaths as trivial if they didn't happen in an English-speaking country. You've heard of the Marshall University crash in November 1970, perhaps even shed a tear while watching We Are Marshall. But chances are that you have no idea that several hundred thousand people were killed in a cyclone in Bangladesh the same month-- nor do you really care, because it was in Bangladesh, and nobody you know got hurt. I've set out as much information as I can find in other sources about the disaster (I'll have to say, the "original research" guy really galls me... you're a jerk). I can't discount the possibility that the almanacs and lists of disasters have been the victim of a hoax (the Black Hole of Calcutta is a perfect example), although the scamming of authoritative reference works would, in itself, be notable. Mandsford (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that no WP:RS have bothered to clear up the name confusion in the first place perfectly demonstrates why we have a WP:N policy requiring "non-trivial coverage" in the first place. Notability is not an arbitrary threshold to be overcome by throwing WP:BIGNUMBERs at it ("look how many people supposedly died!"); it's a standard that ensures a minimum amount of information is available about a topic, and that, since someone bothered to write non-trivially about a topic, they might have had their work fact-checked (whereas throwaway assertions in works which do not focus on the subject of an article often contain many errors). It's quite clear that no sources have looked particularly deeply into this alleged ship, which leaves us writing information based on a 41-word entry in some book, plus sentence fragments in the New York Times which can't even agree how this ship is called and come up with names which are clearly ridiculous ("Kicker" Maru? you've gotta be kidding me). cab (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this never happened (and it's looking that way), then I'm surprised that the misinformation went on for more than 90 years. It would come as a surprise to all those publishers of almanacs over the decades as well. However, if Japanese sources indicate that the American sources are incorrect, then I'm glad to see that coming to light. As cab points out, the almanacs, and even the books about maritime disasters have never looked particularly deeply into the details. I did find the 1912 newspaper article, and the report of a typhoon was the first explanation that I ever saw for how a Titanic like disaster would have happened. I appreciate the people who have been able to search Japanese sources, which confirm that this isn't mentioned in Japanese history, the American sources notwithstanding. What's the proper way to treat a debunked story? One way would be to delete the article entirely (note to administrator-- WP:HOAX applies to bad-faith creations, not to misinformation that has been repeated for decades). However, since the veracity of the story is now doubtful, I think it would be better to leave the entry and add disclaimers. Otherwise, the same mistakes will be made a couple of years from now. Mandsford (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. Those who think this is a hoax are idiots. It's been included in the Information Please Almanac annually for decades. It should've been in Wikipedia a long time ago. Hard to believe for some that a shipwreck with such a high loss of life could follow the Titanic six months later. But it did happen. The Titanic is not the only shipwreck in history. Let's not forget shipwrecks were common in those days. The Kichemaru was not a brand new ship with rich people on it and probably because it happened on the far side of the world it wasn't reported as much. In 1907 the S.S. Dakota was lost in Yokohama Bay. At the time it was the largest liner built in the United States. Hardly is it ever recalled except in the best of books on maritime history. So rather than deleting this article, concentrate on expanding this for instance with a photograph of the ship. KoplimekKoplimek (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Koplimek, any additional sources that you have will be greatly appreciated, particularly if you know of a source for a photograph of the Kiche Maru. I think the use of the word "hoax" is unfortunate, since it implies something intentionally misleading. What we've seen so far is that (a) Nobody has found a Japanese source that recounts the sinking of a ship with more than 1,000 persons aboard; (b) Nobody has found a Japanese source that refers to a ship called Kiche Maru or anything similar, even accounting for variations in transliteration; (c) There are numerous contemporary American newspaper reports of a typhoon that struck Japan on September 22, 1912, with a heavy loss of life, whether on ships or on land. Because of the lack of Japanese sources to back up the American sources, I conclude that this may have been a case of inaccurate reporting, which was not uncommon in the days where news from overseas was sent by telegraph. Mandsford (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • cab I apologize if you're offended. Mandsford I'd love to find a photo of this ship. Mind it's wasn't the biggest ship in the world or the newest at that time. There was a maritime site earlier in this decade that listed the Kichemaru shipwreck. A very legit merchant site that's sadly not up anymore. For whatever reason the Japanese wanted this disaster suppressed I would think. 1000 people dying is a huge loss no matter what the country. But just like I said before the S.S. Dakota(biggest American built liner in 1907) was lost in Japan in Yokohama and at one time you couldn't find a thing on this ship on the net. I love the internet but it's not bonafide. Believe it or not there's information that's not on the net such as "passenger lists of victims of airline disasters." Somewhere there'll surface a photo of this ship. I'll keep looking I know that. All my best guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koplimek (talk • contribs) 02:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken voice

edit
Chicken voice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7th Altrincham Boys Brigade

edit
7th Altrincham Boys Brigade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable local branch Nuttah (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Scientizzle 15:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other World Kingdom

edit
Other World Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. The "Kingdom" has been extensively covered in BDSM community websites, blogs, and usenet[8]; it does not appear to have any significant coverage in reliable published sources. It appears not to have been in any news articles, [9] although it was mentioned briefly in two BDSM books by one author.[10] Thus it appears to fail the notability test. Absent reliable, independent sources, the article has been written "in-universe" in style, copied substantially from the "Kingdom's" own website. [11] Based on the sources available, it doesn't seem that a properly neutral and verifiable article can be written at this time.

(Please note that this discussion is NOT about the OWK's practices, ideology, hawtness, coolness, or moral character: the question here is the lack of independent reliable sources.) <eleland/talkedits> 08:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) The consensus of this discussion is that the village of Gohar (chak 8) exists as a geographical location and needs its own article. Darkspots (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gohar Chowk 8

edit
Gohar Chowk 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No context and not clear whether it is about a person or a place.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Not so sure about your logic there, Brewcrewer, as I was not able to find any sources that actually used the words "Gohar Chowk 8" together as one place name, I think this probably fails on verifiability, but maybe if we could find the author or someone who speaks/reads the relevant language we could get some clarity... Beeblbrox (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The article seems more about 2 people than a place.Clearly a reader will not understand what it is about.Same not able to find any sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that the two people take up a disproportionate amount of the article, but as any stub, it takes time to take to take the correct form, etc. The vast majority of geographic location articles include a section of its notable residents.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete, particularly given the prior AfD consensus (December 2007) that the article "should be recreated when reliable information is available" — Scientizzle 15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor (UK Series 5)

edit
The X Factor (UK Series 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The series doesn't start for another 6 mounths. Buc (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball delete - there was more than a faint whiff of disguised attack page about it, too Grutness...wha? 00:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan back

edit
Rohan back (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like a possible hoax, I cannot find references to verify this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete. G1 Nonsense. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas andreadis

edit
Andreas andreadis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Haitani

edit

Unsourced (blogs generally do not count) - And I don't see how being a "GUI god" is notable. I just don't see how Haitani is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A blog is not a valid reference. Internet sites mentioning this person appear to be advertisments. TheScotch (talk) 07:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If he had founded Handspring with Hawkins and Dubinski he would most certainly be notable. However, that was Ed Colligan, not this joker. This is a "hoaxvertisement." mmmm, hang on, it looks like he was Handspring's director of marketing, a fairly significant position [12]. Still, there's no nontrivial coverage in reliable sources, so it should be deleted. <eleland/talkedits> 08:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: has a few mentions and interviews here and there in print [13], but he seems to be cited or interviewed mostly in the context of the Palm design and articles about the Palm Pilot. So to me he would be mentionable in articles about the Palm and its history but not necessarily a separate article because I have not found any secondary sources talking about him and his contributions. Even the Designing Interactions book is interviewing him mostly as a way of describing the design process at palm and not because the designers were particularly notable, that books claims to use interviews primarily instead of specific viewpoints to convey the diversity of design approaches and process - not particularly to highlight notable designers. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Donald Douglas

edit
Walter Donald Douglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable biography. Only claim to notability is death in the RMS Titanic sinking. Jmlk17 05:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:47, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Barron

edit
Jon Barron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable psuedoscience personality. Article is vague, unreferenced, unverified, with no hope of getting there. The page is veiled advertising, and uses buzzwords like "de-mystify", "nutraceutical researcher", and "formulary consultant". MrPrada (talk) 05:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

150 Watts

edit
150 Watts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC in every way. No tours, no notable lable, and it looks to be written as a fansite. Lack of third party sources to assert notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Still some debate over the sufficiency of the coverage in the references, but the article has improved significantly and the consensus is to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Wake Daddy

edit
AfDs for this article:
Don't Wake Daddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable children's board game, unsourced. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering the commercials is not an assertion of notability. Non-trivial coverage of them might be. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia's definition of notability requires that sources be "independent of the subject". A television commercial is clearly not independent of its subject. Just because something is heavily advertized (and so far there is only non-verifiable "original research" to suggest this thing was heavily advertised) doesn't mean it had any significant impact on the culture at large. Wikipedia should not be in the business of merely regurgitating television commercials--or advertisements of any sort. TheScotch (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as someone who grew up in the 1990s, I can assure you that this was heavily advertised, at least in the USA. We don't have to put that in the article if we can't cite it to a good print source, but it is basically true. Zagalejo^^^ 07:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's not a question of what goes in the article; it's a question of what constitutes evidence of notability. Again: a television commercial is not "independent of the subject", and even if it were your mere assurance that it appeared in commercials is "original research".TheScotch (talk) 07:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it isn't, and I wasn't using that specific statement as an argument for notability. Zagalejo^^^ 07:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's remained available in stores for at least sixteen years, which is a pretty good run for a board game. I'm sure we could scrounge up enough material for a couple of sourced paragraphs. I'll get going on that when I can access Newsbank. For the time being, I can say that it has an entry in this book, which is a good sign. Zagalejo^^^ 07:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see that being "available in stores" constitutes having a significant impact on the culture at large (which is not to suggest I've ever seen it at a store--I haven't). It seems to me that merely listing the inventory of "stores" (with description) is tantamount to advertising; it's what commercial catalogs do. TheScotch (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it's still being produced over a decade after its release is a sign of its enduring popularity with young people. I don't know anything about you, so I can't explain why you've never seen it. Zagalejo^^^ 07:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neither advertisement nor inventory is proof of "popularity", a fortiori cultural impact. It's odd that you've cited a commercial catalog in an apparent attempt to rebut my charge that this is tantmount to a commercial catalog. TheScotch (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had to offer some proof that the game is still in production, and if it's still in production, then someone must be buying it. Otherwise, the company would spend its resources on something else. This, in my opinion, is just as notable as any mainstream video game, and we've always kept articles on those games so long as they were reviewed by gaming magazines. Zagalejo^^^ 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "and if it's still in production, then someone must be buying it.":
It doesn't follow that it's "popular". It doesn't even follow that an economically significant number of persons are "buying it". Many companies often do foolish things--although it's not our place to say whether this would be foolish; there could be all sorts of extenuating circumstances. In short, your argument is pure speculation.
Re: "I think you're expecting a higher level of cultural impact than is required by Wikipedia standards.":
It's clear that I'm expecting a higher level than you, but I shouldn't think it valid to judge what is appropriate by comparing it to the lowest level that has temporarily managed to squeak by. TheScotch (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be more than a simple mention in a book, nothing that has been presented thus far could be considered non-trivial. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The two book references that are added are important for verifiability, but they appear to be simple mentions of the game. Therefore, they are not assertions of notability. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dictionary of Toys and Games entry alone should be sufficient to establish notability. That's enough to satisfy Durova's "dead-trees standard" (an entry in a paper encyclopedia, including specialized encyclopedias). Zagalejo^^^ 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is over-sourced. The problem is that almost every one of the sources listed are trivial Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they're that trivial. The sources don't just mention the game in passing; they make significant claims about the game's popularity. Regardless, the game still has an independent entry in a reference book about American toys, which should clinch its notability, IMO. Zagalejo^^^ 18:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game also served as the inspiration for a series of works by Martin Kippenberger. [14] I'm trying to find more information on that. Zagalejo^^^ 18:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to get a hold of one of these, but that might take a while. (I can't get previews of the pages I need.) Still, I hope you'd concede that this game at least has borderline notability. Zagalejo^^^ 19:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an entry in a toy reference book is an assertion of notability. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources show that this has far more notability than most of the computer games that are kept at AfD on the back of a couple of reviews in online magazines. A lot of people seem to have the idea of which sources best show notability the wrong way round. Print sources demonstrate far more notabilty than online ones, not less, because they involve much more effort and expense to produce. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is one more reference: http://www.imperfectparent.com/articles/articles127_1.php. When searching the web for stuff, I did find a number of people who called it things like "the Candyland of my generation" and the like. I'd never heard of it... Hobit (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also per WP:HEY. Secondary references to the game like Kippenberger appropriation [15], derivative children's book, and awards help it cross the line for me. Article is greatly improved. - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite claims to the contrary, the coverage of it the mentioned sources is not trivial - for example, the Dictionary of Toys and Games devotes the better part of a page discussing Don't Wake Daddy and ONLY Don't Wake Daddy - hardly a passing mention or trivial reference, the authors of that encyclopedia clearly felt that it was an important enough game to devote a section to specifically discussing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coanda-1910 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple sources, non-trivial coverage, game has remained in print for an extended period of time. Edward321 (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Davenport

edit
Marc Davenport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced under-referenced article about an actor and former U.S. soldier know for his work with a small theater group in Sierra Vista, Arizona. Other claims to fame are described in the article as "rumours". Contested prod. ×Meegs 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:
1. An editor's votes should have more force, I should think, when he actually signs in.
2. Since no Wikipedia article can be a valid source for another Wikipedia article, it follows that the "publishing" of a Wikipedia article cannot be a valid reason for retaining it. TheScotch (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (Oh, and J.C existed briefly on March 18, 2007). — Scientizzle 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My World (J.C Album)

edit
My World (J.C Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable unreleased album by a non-notable artist. I think he used to have a WP page himself, but it was deleted. It's a self-run label, and I'm not sure it exists off of MySpace. eaolson (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly redirected to That Mitchell and Webb Look, which seems to be the direction that this discussion was headed in. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NumberWang

edit
NumberWang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I think that Numberwang is funny as hell, but it doesn't deserve its own page. Note that a separate page at Numberwang was already redirected without question to That Mitchell and Webb Look; this page was prodded and contested without reason. There don't seem to be enough sources out there to make a serious page on Numberwang, it seems -- all I'm finding is YouTube and blogs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:CSD#G3. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shansi

edit
Joe Shansi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A compete hoax, that should had been speedy deleted, I tried to db it but it was declined, thehendonmob.com a comprehensive poker database of live tournament results yields no results for Joe Shansi [16]or any Shansi [17] this never happen with a 2 million dollar poker winner, this true on all other poker databases cardplayer pokerlisting etc.

Joe Shansi is not on the all time money list http://pokerdb.thehendonmob.com/ranking/1 anywhere

It says he is "greatest No Limit Hold 'Em player." this is false, I been following poker for years and he never has appeared or been written about by any poker source or authority . google list 15 result for "Joe Shansi" poker [18]

The article says "He placed 238th place at the 2007 World Series of Poker (WSOP) when he was eliminated by Jerry Yang (poker player), the 2007 World Series of Poker champion" Also untrue he does not appear anywhere. 238th place was a poker player named Matt Sterling

I'm not assuming bad faith, this article is pure fiction. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faction Equinox

edit
Faction Equinox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased software with no assertion of notability. Even if this were released software, with no assertion of notability, we shouldn't keep this article. It's apparently in an alpha release with 30 people testing it. Hardly seems notable enough for an encyclopedia article. eaolson (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Copple

edit
Bert Copple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Vanity article, generally non-notable subject, seems a vehicle to promote political challenge WWGB (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Being Australian, I am not familiar with the American political system or elections, so I can't assess notability. That said, I don't approve of a subject writing their own article, however in this case it appears to have been surprisingly neutral (for the most part). The references are valid (multiple references from more than one source), and I have done a quick bit of work splitting the article into headers, then adding internal links. I don't feel it's ready to go yet, though I'm willing to change my decision based on other editors' notability reasoning. SMC (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not the actual Republican nominee Subject entered the race a week ago. Long after the party primaries had already been held. Just running for office does not make a person notable. DarkAudit (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If I were a Michigander I might vote for him, but a candidacy alone doens't meet the WP:BIO requirements. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - changing stance from "weak keep" - per nom. I now have a slightly better understanding of the US political system, so this person clearly isn't notable. Also, the COI keeps creeping up in my mind. SMC (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headfuk

edit
Headfuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't know anything about the subject except what's in the article (I'm hesitant to Google it because of the name), but I'm not convinced that it is notable. Maybe someone from London or England in general can shed some light on its notability (or lack of it). The article's only claim is that it was mentioned in one magazine. Delete. ~EdGl 04:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UCD Fencing Club

edit
UCD Fencing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable university sports club. The only reference is to the club's own website BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ba Sing Se

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ba Sing Se (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I nominated this article for deletion before. In the nomination, a user suggested being bold and merging the article. However, the merge was reverted. I think this article should be deleted (or at least redirected) since the information in the article is simply encyclopedic. The information in the article that is referenced is referenced to the show (with one or two exceptions), and a lot of the information could be speculation. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 03:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)*[reply]

  • Keep-First off, contrary to what's been claimed in this nomination, the nominator did NOT merge this article, but simply redirected it. That's not the same thing, and calling it a merge is misrepresentation of what took place. Now then, most of the information is sourced or can be. This is a major fictional topic, with too much detail to cover in a parent article. I'd also note that there was a discussion by the relevant wikiproject prior to this article's creation that formed a consensus to do so. As a note, though, if we do decide to merge it, the proper article would be "Earth Kingdom", not "Avatar: The Last Airbender".--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this topic major? It could be considered that the city itself is a major landmark in the show's fictional universe, but the information presented in the article is practically useless. For instance, do we really need to document all of the locations in the city? Do we really need to describe its government? Remember to keep in mind that a lot of this information is probably described in the many plot summaries throuhout the Avatar articles, as well as the specific Ba Sing Se paragraph in the Earth Kingdom article. If we trim the useless information, we could easily merge the article into Earth Kingdom (I do apologize for being misleading by saying I merged the article. In addition, I do agree that if merged it should be merged into Earth Kingdom and not Avatar: The Last Airbender — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 22:26, 30


  • I don't agree with most of what you've labeled "useless". Ba Sing Se is the setting for half a season, give or take, worth of episodes. Details about it are plot significant. Things like its government and so forth are major plot catalysts, not just random tidbits.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the city was an important setting. The government did have an important plot effect on the show. But do we really need a detailed explanation of the government, or could we suffice with one paragraph on the government? And what about the rest of the article? Is the three-ring arrangement of the city so important that it needs to be explained in its own section (including a whole paragraph describing the area outside Ba Sing Se)? Do we need to repeat why Ba Sing Se fell? Do we need a detailed description of the King's Palace and who was allowed in the palace and how the palace contained "numerous ceremonial temples, quarters to house the Kings servants, intricate gardens, and the King's menagerie of rare, exotic animals"? As for sourcing, it would be good if you could tell me how we could source the whole inspiration paragraph of the article, which seems more like just a comparison between the city and real-life structure (instead of describing how the structures "inspired", hence the section name, the creators of the show to make this city). This city might be is important to the show, but there is no need to devote a two thousand word article to the topic, when a basic overview and description would suffice. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 23:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. I am a aware that there is a single secondary source that has real world context, but it concerns Avatar as a whole, not Ba Sing Se. If the merge was never performed, then deleting is allowed. However, deletion cannot be performed after a merge for copyright reasons. Jay32183 (talk) 05:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Article seems sourced (though mostly primary sources) and seems to meet WP:V quite nicely. WP:N is harder, as it's a call as to if this breakout article is appropriate given the notability of the topic. I'm not sure, but suspect it might be. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean by "sourced"? There are only 10 sources (7 being from the show) and most of the article is only sourced to number three. In addition, there is a whole section that is unsourced. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So? Not every section _needs_ sourcing to be a reasonable, or even good, article. See Singer, Composer, etc. In fact most articles are that way. I hit "random" 3 times in a row, and the first three were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onikan_Stadium, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Poe, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunniside,_Sunderland. Not a whole lot of sourcing going on there, nor do they really need in-line sourcing as the articles are largely non-controversial. Certainly better sourcing would be better, but the article is well past acceptably sourced as it is. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, the article is nowhere near acceptably sourced. Other articles being poorly sourced is not a reason to save this article. The article doesn't have any secondary sources that discuss the subject. To have a Wikipedia article a subject must have "significant coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources independent of the topic". Ba Sing Se does not have that. Notability is not a matter of opinion. There are secondary sources or there aren't. The problem with this article isn't inline citation, it's missing quality sources. There's plot and stuff that is only tangentially related. There needs to be sources for real world context, not content. That is, the article needs to present "Ba Sing Se" from the perspective of the real world, with sources for that. Adding real world info that doesn't actually matter to the understanding of "Ba Sing Se" doesn't help, no matter how good those sources are. Jay32183 (talk) 06:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an interesting opinion, but I don't think we are restricted to using a source that covers "real world material". Certainly WP:PLOT doesn't provide any such restriction. As I said, I don't know enough about this topic (Airbender) to have a strong opinion, but I do think you are mistaken about what's needed here. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, WP:PLOT does make such a restriction. Articles can't contain only plot. Although this article does contain more than plot, that information is not specific to this topic, so it doesn't justify an article. There needs to be real world information about Ba Sing Se, such as development and reception, to justify a Wikipedia article. There is a difference between Wikipedia and an Avatar fan wiki. You're of course welcome to contribute to both, but you should keep the two straight. Jay32183 (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Dude. #1 I know nothing about Avatar other than seeing it on TV as I flip past it. #2 My comment was that from WP:V's viewpoint this thing is reasonable sourced. You don't need a cite for every factual statement if that statement is non-controversial Hobit (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I guess you are right. Either way, this article is still not notable enough. — Parent5446 (t n c k e l) 12:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
---- One of the appropriate wikiprojects has been notified of this AfD Hobit (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge as its WikiProject has done little to save it during this AfD, which causes me to think that they do not care about this article, which may be able to establish notability if it tries. –thedemonhog talk • edits


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peg (band)

edit
Peg (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Only a bare assertion of notability, mostly by either name dropping or saying, "Hey! We're notable!" One CD and no indication of association with any labels, major or indie, does not meet the guidelines set forth in WP:MUSIC. No sources to back up claims of "significance". DarkAudit (talk) 03:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Ung

edit
Sandra Ung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Chief of staff to a sub-national elected representative is not notable, even if that elected representative is the first Asian American in the New York State Assembly. nat.utoronto 03:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs that employ counterpoint

edit
List of songs that employ counterpoint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very, very short list of songs; unsourced and will probably be very hard to source. I searched for sources and could not find any reliable sources that stated that the songs use counterpoint. On top of that, this borders on original research -- at least in my opinion, the SHeDAISY example is only kind of sort of a counterpoint. With the lack of sources and the presence of original research in mind, I think that this list should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Counterpoint is probably a bit technical (or at least could use a more lay-friendly introduction) and the "popular culture" list it has is more illuminating (and could be worked into an expanded article better). The technique is so common as to remain chiefly unnoted when used. --Dhartung | Talk 07:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wow, another Wikipedia list of everything. My sophomore music theory teacher used to say that virtually all non-monophonic music of any account has some counterpoint. At the very least, pretty much all rock songs will have counterpoint between the bass guitar part and the voice part--and zillions will have counterpoint between two or more voice parts. TheScotch (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 12:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There might be a bit more point to a list of songs that don't employ counterpoint, but a list of songs that employ counterpoint would be a list of almost every song. Klausness (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After looking at the list, I don't think that the information is reliable enough for a merge. According to the article Counterpoint, "counterpoint involves the writing of musical lines which sound very different from each other, but are so contrived as to sound harmonious when played together"; the article doesn't mention harmony, but says "a second melody is added as an accompaniment to the first melody". Since there are no sources, I suspect this is a case of original research, where the author thought of songs, like Eleanor Rigby, that have two melodies and believed he/she was hearing counterpoint. Given the amount of study made of Eleanor Rigby and Paperback Writer and other Beatles songs, there's no excuse for not having a source. If there's a book that describes popular songs that employ counterpoint, or a CD compilation named "Now That's What I Call Counterpoint!", that's another matter. Mandsford (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. There doesn't seem to be much by way of agreement as to what gets a song on the list. Any song based around an ostinato riff, with a sung melody that moves semi-independently, is using counterpoint of a sort. (Think of In A Gadda Da Vida) So is any song with harmony that uses a leading note. On the other hand, few popular songs contain full fledged fugato passages, although Paperback Writer may count. Then there are songs with contrapuntal passages in the accompaniment. (SOS by Abba comes to mind). I generally don't think that separate, published sources are strictly necessary for lists with obvious criteria for inclusion, but this seems to have problems of scope as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As a WP:LIST, it could work, however, there are issues: The main problem I have is that the concept of "counterpoint" in songs can be entirely subjective, whether it's keyboards and guitars, vox and guitars or any other variation on a similar theme. Ergo, this article would be insufferably difficult to find reliable sources for. Counterpoint itself is difficult enough. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Barratt (British author)

edit
Mark Barratt (British author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This British author has written a biography that got at least token press attention, and has another book out this month. He seems to be on the cusp of notability. Article was prodded, I'm taking it to AfD procedurally as I feel it merits further discussion. Neutral at present. Jfire (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • For clarification: This didn't use to be so. It is so now because of the "Amazon Advantage" program, which is essentially vanity publishing, and Amazon doesn't let us know which books are "Amazon Advantage" and which are not. The McKellen biography entry at Amazon doesn't name a publisher, which is a bad omen for Barratt notability. TheScotch (talk) 08:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I applied the PROD tag (having missed a previous PROD). I'm not convinced this author has received sufficient coverage to warrant an article. That said, if the new book takes off, that shouldn't prevent the article being recreated later. I agree with the above idea that it is on the 'cusp' of notability, but it isn't there yet Fritzpoll (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, which defaults to Keep. Although it is apparent upon reading the commentary here and at WP:COIN that the "author" of this work has a conflict of interest, that isn't strictly prohibited per our own guidelines. I strongly recommend that the COI tag remain on the article, however. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Tylman

edit
Richard Tylman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to demonstrate notability as a "poet, essayist and painter" per Wikipedia:Notability (people), creative professionals.

Poetry appears to be small-press and/or self-published. Essays were in a specialist free zine, Takie Zycie. Painting credentials are insufficiently demonstrated, citations largely coming from Richard Tylman's own website; he may well have had a career as an advertising artist, but verifiability and proof of notabilty in this field requires third-party sources about this work, not merely examples of its existence. There's a general lack of third-party verification of this article's content, no references in News or Books other than self-published, and there's also a strong conflict of interest (see WP:COIN#Richard Tylman). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the need to avoid systemic bias. But this doesn't over-ride the need for proof that achievements are up to the generally-applied standards for notability. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ty 02:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please, assume good faith. Magazines and newspapers with limited circulation are valid. Their circulation alone does not determine their notability. Thousands of articles in Wikipedia feature data drawn from brochures never again reprinted. Things like populations of cities, wartime events, lives of prominent politicians, geomorphology, molecular biology, architecture, turning points in history, advancements in technology, mass crimes, etc. No one is going to roam through articles about living artists in order to remove whatever information originated from small press. There’s no need to remove all mention of Polish language periodicals from this article under the threat of WP:COI. And please remain cautious about possible vendettas against immigrant periodicals by immigrants themselves, even though their opinions might have the appearance of objectivity. There are living people behind these publications, people with vested interest in their quality. In Vancouver where I live, the best local zines ARE free of charge: The Georgia Straight, The West Ender, The Courier. We do not need to single out Polish Takie Zycie weekly or even Strumień based on first impressions of Wikipedians not familiar with their content and role among ethnic communities. --Poeticbent talk 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And please avoid poisoning the well. See WP:COI for advice on conduct in deletion discussions. Telling others to discount edits from editors with or without a particular background is not "exercising great caution". For the benefit of editors who are new to the situation, Poeticbent is Richard Tylman.
Note also that there is a difference between references that prove verifiability of statements (which can be as obscure as you like) and references that demonstrate notability (which are expected to be up to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability includes works widely published in non-trivial media and you can't get any more non-trivial than Time. The fact a number of cited sources are non-North American shouldn't be held against the article. Small press, similarly, doesn't disqualify an article, either, although in this case I actually ignored that part of the article because I stopped at Time Magazine. 23skidoo (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Working as an airbrush illustrator on advertisements used in Time certainly does not make you prima facie notable! Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People are also missing the point I made in the nomination: that verifiability and demonstration of notability require third-party articles about the subject's work. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. By revealing my real life name “for the benefit of editors who are new to the situation” User:Gordonofcartoon succumbs to the following argument from Wikipedia Poisoning the well: “Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.” The nomination was relisted by User:Tyrenius in order to generate a more thorough discussion with less emphasis on conflict of interest, and more emphasis on notability, inspiring my comment above made six days after the initial nomination. My comment paints the necessary background to edits made in the interim by Gordonofcartoon. I do not believe that anybody’s missing the point he made in his nomination, that “verifiability and demonstration of notability require third-party articles about the subject's work.” All mention of third-party references “about the subject's work” has been removed from the article during this nomination… so much for Gordonofcartoon’s impartiality. – What’s the point in discrediting a small Polish language art magazine, I ask? English language translation was already provided for you by a supporter of this nomination who speaks the language. In his translation (quickly challenged as “lacking in understanding of literary and editorial terminology”) we can read for example: “One of the most interesting poetic entries in recent years in émigré poetry”... “his national debut was a late debut by an already matured poet, both artistically and philosophically.” Meanwhile, even a short list of essays written in Polish was subsequently deleted from the article by Gordonofcartoon with the summary: “remove "essayist" - entirely in non-notable publications.” In my view, such unilateral removal of data following his own AfD nomination results in an interesting WP:COI for the nominator himself.--Poeticbent talk 19:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't object per se to people writing their own articles, but given that resources they then have, there is no excuse at all for inadequate referencing of claims. They should also be extra-ready to defer to other editors on issues like notability, as there is a clear COI. You do have a COI, which you did not follow procedure by pointing out yourself, so talk of "poisoning the well" is completely inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Notability is poorly established and the article and its sourcing are strongly tainted by conflict of interest (WP:COIN#Richard Tylman). There is evidence that Tylman is a poet and an artist but that alone does not make him notable by WP standards. - Dravecky (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. No evidence has yet been presented that Richard Tylman "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." With all due respect, the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument holds no water. If "less notable djs, rockers and other artist wannabees" cannot meet notability guidelines they have no place either. Finally, that some of Tylman's commercial artwork was printed a handful of magazine advertisements in 1986 does not speak at all to notability, rather they demonstrate that he was once employed as a commercial artist (as were the many dozens of other commercial artists whose work would have appeared in the very same issues). Victoriagirl (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Victoriagirl and nom. Neither a notable artist nor a notable poet. Living in Canada since 1982, I would expect a notable artist/writer to have received some English-language press.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think in Canada's multicultural milieu it would not be unexpected for a Polish-born author to continue to write primarily in Polish. There seems to be an element of harassment and stalking going on against Tylman. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two Comments 1) Most of the material featured in the subject's bibliography is in the English language. 2) The charge that Richard Tylman is being subjected to "harassment and stalking" is an extremely serious one. I suggest that Spoonkymonkey he repeat the charge and present his evidence in the appropriate forum. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. In my view, he has attracted only the attention appropriate to fairly egregious gaming of the system regarding both the letter and spirit of WP:COI. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South 40

edit
South 40 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be a notable band; fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC, only source is MySpace. Claims to have played with several notable bands, but that doesn't make them notable themselves. Also a redirect from South 40 (band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this article was created as South 40 (band). Since South 40 was already created as a redirect, I've cancelled the redirect, moved the content to South 40 and redirected South 40 (band) to South 40. In other words, although the creator of the page is User:Matt91486, the creator of the content is User:Ktoney (who I had already warned about this afd debate) and I was responsable for the redirects. Victao lopes (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well, this all confuses me with page moves and whatnot, but I think the end result should still be a redirect to Crow (band) or at worst a disambig page if the dorm is really deemed worth keeping. matt91486 (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needles & haystacks

edit
Needles & haystacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A music label which appears to consist entirely of a freewebs site. Article creator Mitche08 has created a number of articles about this label and its subsidiary artists, all of which have been deleted as non-notable. Notability is claimed by placing in the "Street Hot 100" charts, although I can find no evidence this chart even exists (0 relevent ghits apart from wp articles by this author). FiggyBee (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete CSD#A7 (band) - no assertion of notability. —Travistalk 02:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Audiologues

edit
The Audiologues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC in every way. No notable label, no notable reviews, no tours etc... Lack of sources to assert any type of notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The WP:OR issues raised in the discussion have not been satisfactorily countered by those wanting to keep the article. In its current form the article touches on three somewhat distinct meanings of the term – orientalism, a "celebration of Islamic beliefs and a rejection of secularization processes", and an "unwavering and uncritical admiration of Islam". It remains unclear how exactly these match up with each other, and neither meaning is covered in much detail in the sources that have been provided. In its current form, the article does not (yet) clear the WP:SYNTH / WP:NEO threshold. Sandstein (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophilia

edit
AfDs for this article:
Islamophilia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a neologism, apparently coined by Daniel Pipes, which is based upon a number of sources that all appear to mention the word in passing. None of them actually discuss the term itself in any substantial depth. From Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms:

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

I think that says it all. Articles on neologisms must have multiple reliable sources which discuss the word itself in sufficient depth for the topic to be noteworthy. Sources merely using the word, or discussing it very briefly or in passing, are insufficient to merit a whole article. In this instance, all the sources in the article simply use the term. I haven't been able to locate any sources which thoroughly discuss this neologism (i.e. its origin, history, usage, application, and so on). The best thing I could find was this 1996 work, which gives a brief two-sentence explanation which differs somewhat from the cynical connotation intended by most commentators, and also uses the word alongside other strange neologisms like "Orientitis" and "Occidentosis." In conclusion, I believe there are insufficient sources actually discussing the neologism in depth to warrant an article on the topic. If you believe the article should be kept, please provide the appropriate RS which offer a thorough exposition of the term itself, as stipulated above. ITAQALLAH 01:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You seem to me to be trying to eat your cake and have it too. The article is obviously about the word. In any case, there would be no excuse for an article about "love of Islam" either. Islam itself is of course a legitimate topic, but it's pretty good bet that an "Islam" article already existed. TheScotch (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Just a couple more from Pipes which don't change notability, as far as I can tell. Speedy delete. Relata refero (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Articles can change and so can consensus. I have already updated the article to improve its form and content. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see much of a difference, it appears to be broadly identical to the deleted content. Relata refero (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I was the admin who decline the G4 deletion earlier because I thought it was substantially different. Just for the record, the previous version was this:

Islamophilia is a controversial neologism. Islamophilia is an opposite term for an other controversial neologism (Islamophobia). Islamophilia is used for non-muslims who are according for example Daniel Pipes to much sympathysing with the ideology Islam. Islamophilia was in the beginning used in fora and so on. But in the main article of Dutch opinion magazine Elsevier about the question to forbid the Quran journalist Gerry van der List used the word in the quote "the islamophile theologe Karen Armstrong.

That doesn't meet my speedy deletion criteria. --Haemo (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have been through all the sources now. I only found one from Pipes and I took it out as it was irrelevant. I've highlighted Burchill as an example of a critic since that is supported by a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is about the term?--Agha Nader (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the source I just added which discusses the matter in the context of 15C Spain. This topic is centuries old and to see it purely in terms of contemporary polemics is recentism. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be a little more specific? The Fortress of Faith: The Attitude Towards Muslims in Fifteenth Century Spain is not about Islamophilia. In fact, it uses the neologism but once!--Agha Nader (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just once, on p. 60, without ever defining the term or talking about its meaning at all. The article should be deleted forthwith. If it is not deleted, that source should be deleted - it is entirely deceptive to use that source to lend the term some kind of academic credibility. csloat (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete: Recreation of previously deleted article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - in order for an entry to be kept in Wiktionary, the requirement is the word must be in usage, and that seems to have been proved. However, in order to be kept in Wikipedia, a higher standard is required - there must be sources about the word, not merely using it. That clearly isn't the case here. PhilKnight (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insofar as the nominator has a point, it is a weak one. I have been going through the sources and they clearly describe the phenomenon of a love of Islam, especially by westerners who are not adherents of the religion. This phenomenon is long-standing and notable and it is therefore appropriate that we have an article on it. Previous versions have been badly written and too polemical but that's a matter of cleanup, not deletion and I am attending to it now. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have looked through the changes made, but I don't believe you've really found sources discussing the term itself in any depth. The very first citation you use, for example, is a speech mentioning Islamophilia only in passing. It offers no explanation of the word, no analysis of it, no history of it. Nothing. This is what is stipulated in WP:NEO, and I don't see how it can be dismissed as weak. ITAQALLAH 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first source uses the word in its title and so it clearly forms a significant part of its theme. We needn't dwell upon the exact word though since it is the topic which matters and this can be expressed by many phrases such as love of Islam, Islamic sympathies, pro-Islamic sentiment and so on. The current title for the topic seems a natural one to a native English speaker like myself and I have no difficulty understanding what is meant. I contrast this with a true neologism like Anti-pattern which is obscure and ill-defined - see its talk page for my position on that. So, if we don't have sources discussing the etymology of Islamophilia this is not because it is not used - it clearly is. It is because the word is so obvious as not to need explanation. We should therefore have no difficulty using it. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weak, the article has many problems... mainly because most reliable sources are just passing references to the term since, unlike Islamophobia (like it or hate it), this term has little coverage. This article leaves out the whole dimension of "irrational love of Islam"... and that's why it's used by Bat Ye'or and Mick Hume. Because there are more sources both pro- and anti- the idea of Islamophobia we can approach a more neutral article which acknowledges it's a neologism and provides self-reflection on the political nature of the term. Not enough sources exist that use "Islamophilia" to provide any self-reflection or external comment. And on such scant sources and with such an undertone in the term we think it's neutral to say "In Britain, Islamophilia is associated with Prince Charles[3] and other members of the Royal family.[4]"... well... that needs to go in the very least. gren グレン 17:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well that goes back to my first point--that much of the writing using the term uses it in a pejorative manner. So, I wouldn't dispute (mostly because I don't know) that Prince Charles has sympathies for Islam. But, the term has a certain implication as per its usage by Bat Ye'or, etc. that this is irrational and against his interests--the whole conecept of Eurabia is pinned on Islamophilia. Without a proper discussion of those aspects the article is woefully incomplete. But, I'm not sure there are any secondary sources discussing that. gren グレン 18:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grenavitar, it would be uncontroversial to say that Prince Charles has a long standing interest in the architecture and culture of Islam. Then again, he is also interested in the architecture and culture of Orthodox Christianity. However, to use a quasi-psychological neologism based on an opinion piece isn't encyclopedic. PhilKnight (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • any pejorative suggestion of irrationality is in your mind, not mine, and would require sources to support it. If I call someone a bibliophile, for example, there is no implication that their love of books is irrational. At worst, it's like calling someone a fan. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still vote delete. The article has very few (if any) reliable sources that give significant coverage to the term. At most, the term is given trivial coverage or "passing reference". Such neologism's "for which there are no treatments in secondary sources" despite usage "are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." This is all from WP:NEO.Bless sins (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nominator's case rests upon WP:NEO. This style guideline has a relevant section which may help us:
Articles wrongly titled as neologisms
In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
So, what this is telling us is that, in a case such as this, we should find another title for the article rather than deleting it. Does anyone prefer another title such as Islamic sympathizers in the West, Islamic advocacy by non-Muslims or the like? Myself, I still prefer Islamophilia which seems simple, NPOV and clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Dhimmitude, Eurabia, and heaven knows how many other articles all making the same point.... Relata refero (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those seem to be rather different concepts. Palestinophilia seems a better example of something similar though less euphonious. Perhaps there is some scope for merger. What is the full list of of such terms? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I just prodded that one!
I'm not sure if we have a location where the entire list of such terms is summed up. The way that some people are arguing, it seems that they wish to conflate the attitudes of nineteeth century Arabists like Richard Burton with medieval scholars of Arab learning with modern-day sympathisers with Palestine, and that's simply unacceptable in the absence of several academic studies making that connection. Relata refero (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arabism such as that of Lawrence of Arabia might be said to be linguistic or racial. Orientalism or Palestinophilia are more geographical in nature. Islam is a religion which spans many geographies, races and languages and so the concepts related to it are somewhat different in scope. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if that is the implication then the proper term is "Islamicist". That's what is used by academics... gren グレン 12:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Entirely non-notable neologism. Delete and stop re-creating.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP Islamophilia is categorically not a neologism. It is a technical, academic term whose meaning would be obvious to any scholar. Such terms are almost never found in standard dictionaires nor even in technical ones. Nevertheless, several academic books analyze Islamophila and use it. For one such analysis check page 7 of Iran After the Revolution: Crisis of an Islamic State, Saeed Rahnema, Sohrab Behdad, I.B.Tauris, 1996, 292 pages, ISBN 1-8606-4128-8 Worldcat showing Academic Libraries holding this text And besides, the article has been vastly improved since this AfD was made. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most "technical, academic terms" are discussed explicitly somewhere, defined explicitly somewhere, sometimes their scope is quarreled over; unless you mention examples of that, I'm afraid your additional example of a particular use of the phrase is useless. We do this so as to ensure that every random phrase used as a convenient rhetorical device by the occasional academic is not given an article that various editors then fill with synthesis-based original research. Relata refero (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked to the specific page in the nomination. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that doesn't look even remotely sufficient to me. --Haemo (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Firefly:To say "several academic books analyze" the word Islamophilia on the basis of a brief passing discussion - only a few sentences long - in one text is a substantial overstatement (see my nom statement for more discussion of this work). If you can substantiate your claim and produce reliable sources offering in depth discussion about the word, as opposed to simply using it or giving it trivial coverage, then it would be much appreciated. ITAQALLAH 23:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Itaqallah Not sure if you honestly believe what you're saying or just playing games with all those who don't share the same ideas as you. In either case, has anyone ever pointed out that you might have a bad habit of taunting other editors? Wikipolicy considers this a particullary bad habit: Wikipedia:Civility#Examples. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe I expressed my objection to some of your assertions in a civil manner. I try not to make discussions personal, and when I express disagreement I don't intend malice by it. On that basis, I'd prefer if we stuck to discussing the issue at hand. ITAQALLAH 00:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neoligism, a “protologism” in fact, the article reads like a joke/blog, and I see no room for improvement. thestick (talk) 01:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable neo. (see WP:NEO. Improvements are unlikely. Undeath (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just about every delete rationale above seems to be treating this as if we were trying to write a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. As Colonel Warden has repeatedly said, this is an article about a topic, not a word. If you don't like the title it can easily be changed to Love of Islam or something else, but whatever title it is given the topic is clearly notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile the article's incompatibility with the word and spirit of WP:NEO? What reliable source do you have for "whatever title it is given the topic is clearly notable"?--Agha Nader (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The term "Islamophilia" gets 10,500 Google hits, 29 Google scholar hits, and 29 Google books hits. And no, the latter aren't all books by Bat Ye'or and Robert Spencer. Jayjg (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yeah... but that's still pretty thin considering the number of fly-by references to it and different usages. On the latter point, there is a definite need for citing every single phrase to a specific author and not the general idea. There is not a great deal of consensus on how to use this term. The issue I think is best summed up in the current prod for Palestinophilia, " non-notable neologism, no reliable sources ABOUT the term". We can find usages of Islamophilia but the reliable sources about the term are scarce. gren グレン 07:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg, how many of those hits are Wikipedia mirrors? The query "Islamophilia -wiki" returns half of the 10,500 you cited. As an experienced admin, would you care to help us interpret WP:NEO?--Agha Nader (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Notable term? Care to above comments, OK? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain your rationale a bit more? On what basis is notability of the term established? ITAQALLAH 17:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability has been established by numerous sources provided in the article and ghits. Its used by numerous sources even in the Muslim world (saeeda rahman, al-ahram weekly, etc).Bakaman 02:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's used but is the term itself discussed? Usage is not sufficient because then we must use OR to agglomerate the primary source usages to write about the term in general. gren グレン 06:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Islamophobia as an example of Islamophobic neologisms.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kidding of course. I support the deletion of this article. Islamophilia is clearly a neologism and a violation of WP:NEO. The article lacks reliable sources about the term. Aside from desperate attempts to keep the article by changing its name, there haven't been good reasons why we should overlook Wikipedia guidelines and keep the article.--Agha Nader (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

WP:NEO keeps being abused in this discussion even though it is neither appropriate nor supports deletion. The -philia suffix is well documented as a normal English usage in the OED which says of it, inter alia,

Formations are found from the mid 19th cent., occurring earliest in sense a. The more general use dates from the late 19th cent.

It chiefly combines with first elements of Greek origin, but cf. audiophilia n. at AUDIOPHILE n. and adj. Derivatives, canophilia n. at CANOPHILIST n., FRANCOPHILIA n., with first elements of Latin origin, and fuchsinophilia n. at FUCHSINOPHIL adj., sudanophilia n. at SUDAN n. Derivatives]

The word and concept seem to be well-understood and it is used without needing definition or explanation in articles such as An end to Islamophobia which uses it as the natural antonym of Islamophobia. Since the latter has an article, there's no reason we can't have an article on the converse phenomenon. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to "the philia suffix" is very obviously a red herring. The term we're concerned about here is the neologism Islamophilia, not "the philia suffix". Arguing in good faith means making an argument you really believe in, not just throwing anything you can come up with against the wall. TheScotch (talk) 09:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not introduce the issue of neologism and consider it largely irrelevant to the merits of the topic and this article. But since the other side rest their case upon this, the matter must be addressed. My contention is that Islamophilia is not a neologism but is simply a formation - a natural combination of existing word elements to express a concept which will be readily understood by an English-speaker. As such, the title is like a phrase. The article is about this concept - love or enthusiasm for Islam - and, by whatever name, this concept is notable. Since the opponents seem to be pro-Islam or Islamophile themselves, it is puzzling to understand why they oppose an article on the subject. I suppose it is the Not invented here problem. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden, your comments are below the standards expected of a Wikipedian. Other editors have accused me of being pro-Hinduvata, and having a bias against South Asia, and now you are making this accusation. Stating the obvious, you can't all be correct. In fact, I'm reasonably confident that you, and the other editors making accusations are completely wrong. Your behavior is very poor, and I trust the closing admin will disregard your comments. PhilKnight (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you, like me, have no particular axe to grind in this matter, then I'm happy to exclude you from the supposed slur of being Islamophile. My point is not a personal one but expresses my intellectual perplexity at the way this topic isbeing treated. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "My contention is that Islamophilia is not a neologism but is simply a formation - a natural combination of existing word elements to express a concept which will be readily understood by an English-speaker. As such, the title is like a phrase.":
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that to consider this a good faith argument strains credulity. Pretty much every word was formed from other existing words or existing parts. This is no distinction at all. To call it "like a phrase" is nonsensical; it is a, newly-formed, word--and thus a neologism. Yes, its meaning can be deciphered, but it still represents a momentary, at least, obstacle, and in any case, there would be no excuse for a "Love of Islam" article either: We can reasonably assume any devout practitioner of the religion to love it. You may not "have an ax to grind", but you're certainly behaving like someone who does. TheScotch (talk) 07:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not nonsense as I back it up with sources. Here's another one, The New Fowler's Modern English Usage:
-phile is now the customary combining form (rather than -phil) forming nouns and adjectives denoting fondness for what is specified in the first element (bibliophile, Francophile, etc.).
Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's little to be "Q.E.D"-ing about when you're avoiding actually addressing the notability criteria specified in great detail by WP:NEO and elsewhere. Showing us that the philia suffix is common in the English language doesn't mean it's automatically notable. Please understand that. ITAQALLAH 14:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO is not about notability. It is a style guideline and its point is that we shouldn't use terms which are difficult to understand because they are new. My counter is that the -phile suffix is well-established and understood in English and so WP:NEO does not apply. Does anyone have any difficulty understanding what the following articles are about: Francophile, Necrophilia, Italophile? Where there is trouble, such as Oenophile, it comes from the first part, not the second, but in this case of Islam, I doubt that this is a problem. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that "other stuff exists" is generally not a sound position to maintain. In the case of these other -philia articles, on what basis do you believe that reliable sources don't exist for these topics which discuss the word itself? You say that WP:NEO doesn't talk about notability, how do yo explain the three paragraphs which I quoted in my nomination statement, which clearly refer to article topics as well as article contents? You can look at WP:NOTABILITY too if you like, which specifies the same criteria as WP:NEO: non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources i.e. discussing the word or phrase itself in detail, not just using it in passing. The guideline quoted in the nomination statement above also states how articles based upon non-notable neologisms will also violate Wikipedia:No original research. You need to address these paragraphs and explain to us how they are to be understood, if you believe we have been understanding it incorrectly. Else we'll be going around in circles. Regards, ITAQALLAH 15:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied that we have adequate sources and that WP:NEO is a red herring. The idea that there is nothing worth saying about a fondness for Islam when there are many articles discussing affection for other subjects such as wine, books, the French and Judaism seems absurd. My strong impression is that you are Wikilawyering in pursuit of a political goal - you wish to suppress the views of folk such as Daniel Pipes who you suppose to have invented the idea that people might like Islam. However, Wikipedia is not censored and views which you find offensive, such as the love of Islam, may be written about here. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not inclined to respond to the personal attacks that frequent your responses, but I will note that you continue to avoid addressing the fact that you need sources about the term, not ones that simply use it. Everything else you raise to evade this point is, as you put it, a red herring. ITAQALLAH 23:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited multiple sources and consider them more than adequate in establishing notability. If I draw conclusions about your political position it is because you yourself introduced this aspect with your assertion about Pipes - a bete noire of yours, I suppose. I have no such pre-conceptions and am still unfamiliar with his work. If he has much to say on the subject then this would tend to add to its notability. You seem to simultaneously acknowledge that the topic exists and yet would deny it coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: " -phile is now the customary combining form (rather than -phil) forming nouns and adjectives denoting fondness for what is specified in the first element (bibliophile, Francophile, etc.). Q.E.D. ":
So far as I can tell no one here has advocated phil over phile or disputed that words including phile exist. This is utterly beside the point. Q. E. D means the thing which was to proved. This, obviously, is not at all the thing which was to be proved. TheScotch (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I am satisfied that we have adequate sources and that WP:NEO is a red herring.":
You're in no position to be accusing others of planting red herrings, and your immediate adoption of a phrase that I'd previously used to describe your method of disingenuous argument only demonstrates further your bad faith. TheScotch (talk) 10:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Should have been speedied, since this article was already AfD'd and was restored without any additional evidence of notability. This is a non-notable neologism associated with a single individual whose work is known for its inaccuracy and extremism. csloat (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can you please explain your rationale why you are saying it "notable academic term"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NBA games televised by NBC

edit
NBA games televised by NBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has basically nothing. No sources. If this is notable, the info on this page can then be merged to 2002 NBA Playoffs Chris! ct 01:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete a pointless dab page. Black Kite 20:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cantabile (disambiguation)

edit
Cantabile (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

only one of the examples, Nodame Cantabile, is notable. The others are not notable. There is no need for a disambiguation page. So it should be deleted. Kingturtle (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Kimball

edit
Steven Kimball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, article consists of mainly redlinks. I couldn't find many results using Google Izzy007 Talk 00:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The company may possibly be notable, and I was going to stub this, but on looking at it the article is such a mess of advertising, poor writing and probable COI that it'd be better to re-create it from scratch. Black Kite 20:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daewoo Information Systems

edit
Daewoo Information Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company of dubious notability. The entire content of the article seems to be based on an official website, so it's not neutral and tends to read as an advertisment for the company. PC78 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 00:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 23:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell Phone Calculators

edit
Cell Phone Calculators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't have strong potential to become an article. Orphaned. (EhJJ)TALK 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The references appear to from make-it-yourself or step-by-step websites with no real hint notability. Searching doesn't turn up much. Perhaps if this technological adaptation catches on in the future..but right now...nope.Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you suppose I move it to. Someone suggested to move it to cell phone (but it won't let me). Would everyone be ok with that? Or should it just be deleted altogether? I deleted it and moved it over to Comparison of computer algebra systems instead.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Bullet Productions

edit
Magic Bullet Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Alan Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A minor, recently formed production company that produces audio spin-offs of the Doctor Who series such as Kaldor City. Kaldor City seems to be notable, but none of the sources actually discuss the production company in any more depth than to mention their name. I'm also nominating Alan Stevens, whose only claim to notability is that he runs this company. Mangojuicetalk 13:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't recently formed, it was formed eight years ago, making it, now BBV are out of the picture, either the oldest or second oldest spinoff production company still operating. Faction Paradox is definitely notable as well-- see its page. Dayofthetriffids (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for Alan Stevens, he's also written books and articles, and has been a frequent contributor to a number of Doctor Who/Blake's 7 related zines and magazines. See the article.Dayofthetriffids (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote against a deletion: I can't see how Kaldor City can be notable but the company producing it isn't. Sounds like it's more a case of the articles not being very in depth, which would suggest a need for contributions, not deletions. Sheriff Bernard (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 00:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The production company is notable for its work (I agree if the production is notable that makes the company that makes it notable, too), plus as noted it's not a new company. Stevens is notable for having internationally distributed books (via Telos) and for having one book published by Manchester University Press which pushes him past the notability threshold. 23skidoo (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bezel

edit
Jay Bezel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A nonnotable rapper who release a couple mixtapes. `'Míkka>t 00:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominated this for PROD) fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC Fritzpoll (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was close, redirect. `'Míkka>t 00:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ko to kaže, ko to laže

edit
Ko to kaže, ko to laže (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song with no evidence of notability. PROD tag removed by author. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 14:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I want to say transwiki, but I don't know where it would go. I'm going to have to say delete unless someone can come up with somewhere else to put this. Celarnor Talk to me
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singularity 23:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T'Ralie-class transport

edit
AfDs for this article:
T'Ralie-class transport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. I doubt that any significant third party refs exist to demonstrate notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. PhilKnight (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Roach (comedian)

edit
Hal Roach (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 08:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. Black Kite 20:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shum Lung

edit
Shum Lung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shum Lung is actually very notable. I also have added new sources to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.58.240 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. RogueNinjatalk 23:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Branches of Wing Chun --Nate1481(t/c) 09:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to 'YKS branch wing chun', or keep stub. Not sure what RJH is talking about, both he and Yuan Kay Shan are listed on the History of Wing Chun page (though Shum is listed by his more common spelling of Sum Nung). Both are notable figures in the Wing Chun family tree, and Yuan's represents an entire branch. Sum Nung, before his passing, was also responsible for a large amount of the presence of the art (via his branch) on the mainland. See discussion at the AFD for Yuan Kay-shan. Likewise, a simple google search brings up plenty of references accounting for this deceased master's notability, besides his discussion in several wing chun geneology books. If references are the issue, I'd be happy to cull through everything and put them up later tonight (was supposed to do that at Yuan's as well but I just didn't have the time yesterday). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stub . Shum Nung is notable in the Chinese martial art history but his name might not be familiar to the West. So a stub is appropiate for him so readers will be aware of this information and editors can contribute. --ottawakungfu (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep taking Marty's word that he is notable. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_29&oldid=1081073194"