- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shirahadasha (talk) 03:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Kristie_smeltzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Does not meet WP:BIO. Author removed prod tag with no explanation. Google search reveals some collegiate-level awards and minor mentions, but nothing coming close to meeting Wiki author notability guidelines Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: no assertion of notability per WP:N and no references for verification per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO.--h i s r e s e a r c h 02:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete no evidence of extensive coverage by reliable secondary sources, consistency with Geogre's Law is noted). Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per above. --Crusio (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Shirahadasha (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Arkasandriel Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
A series of fiction books for which no notability is demonstrated. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable book series. Two Google results for Arksandriel and four for "Alexander Verman". ... discospinster talk 00:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grump: It is not a fictional series. Its reality can be verified. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- That said, I'm finding no way of verifying its notability any more than discospinster did. Does not meet the requirements of WP:BK = delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Delete. I can barely find evidence that this series even exists. Clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, not verifiable or notable, author's name get negligible ghits.--h i s r e s e a r c h 02:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Crap! The article is totally unencyclopedic. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete G1 by User:Djsasso, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 02:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
A recently (i.e., yesterday) made-up word with little present currency. The author of the page removed a proposed for deletion tag, so I decided to send it here. ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons I prod'ed the article: Knowledge (XXG) is not for things made up one day, Knowledge (XXG) is not a publisher of original thought -- pb30<talk> 23:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Completely unworthy of an article. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Mud4t (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: this article is not only patent nonsense per WP:SD#G1, I believe it qualifies as outright WP:vandalism worthy of immediate deletion per WP:SD#G3 as the page's creator has also resorted to obscenities on the article's talk page. Hence, I have tagged the main article as such. Mh29255 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spebi 10:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Alarm clock prank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Knowledge (XXG) is not a howto guide or a publisher of original thought -- pb30<talk> 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete --Mud4t (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:MADEUP, Knowledge (XXG) is not for stuff made up in school one day TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOR and WP:MADEUP. Mh29255 (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- speedy delete per above. Tavix (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Knowledge (XXG) is not a how to guide, nor is it to be used for stuff made up in school one day. --Hdt83 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I Think the user should also be blocked from editing for awhile. IF you look at his talk page this the 4th page he has had deleted in 3 days. Ridernyc (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Load of Old Cobblers. Xdenizen (talk) 09:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete --Anthony.bradbury 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Soviet submarine K-329 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The contents of this article mainly deals with information on other submarines that are often incorrectly referred to as K-329. It is not necessary to create an entire article dedicated to the non-existent submarine. This article also contains much original research, and is written in a very informal manner. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Wow, I tried reading through that article and I got extremely confused. We don't need an article for a non-existing submarine. Tavix (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, the article have not improved since February Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: article is clearly original research and highly garbled. Mh29255 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete possibly, probably, perhaps... reading this is like eavesdropping on a conversation between two boring people. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not appear to exist. —Encephalon 04:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Take another look. Updated, with sources. Looks approximately like a Knowledge (XXG) article now. Help had been requested with reading Russian sources and was a long time coming. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Great article about a submarine that never existed! Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Took another look, no change in vote. It's an article about a submarine that existed, but that was never launched. Maybe there's a good article about an entire fleet of these that were sunk by budget cuts, but the Belgogrod didn't leave port. Mandsford (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I struggle to see a good reason to keep this. Of the four sources purported to be about this submarine, 2 are anonymous posts in internet forums, and therefore completely inadmissible as references for an encyclopedia article. The remaining two are in Russian, and I am unable to ascertain what they claim about the sub. Whatever it is, the K-329 is certainly not the focus of either article; indeed "329" does not appear even once in one of them . As this machine, even if it ever existed, appears to be so poorly documented, I doubt very much that we can at present write a credible encyclopedia article on it. —Encephalon 02:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete-Why take the need to create a article for a non-exsisting sub, after the deletion, however, could add info on the confused sub pages that the sub was not to be confused with K-329.--Quek157 (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - There is very little decent information available about this submarine, and certainly (as has been said before), not enough to write a decent encyclopedic article upon. Kavanagh21 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Shirahadasha (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge any relevant information to the article on Oscar-II class submarine and delete. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete There are FA-standard articles on ships which were laid down but never finished (for example, USS Kentucky (BB-66)) so there's no reason to delete this article because the sub was never completed. However, the lack of reliable sources is a serious concern and the sub's numbering isn't consistent with the other Oscar class submarines (none of them have hull numbers in the 300-range) so I suspect that deletion would be warranted on the grounds that this might be a hoax or an article created in error. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The USS Kentucky was notable for "being the last authorized Iowa-class battleship, and for being the only ship of the class considered for a guided missile rebuild," while the submarine the article is about is just supposedly one of many that were discarded (not notable in any other way). Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Shirahadasha (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Angus Tók Hnífinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable album by non-notable band who have already been deleted - ie fails WP:N and in particular Knowledge (XXG):Notability (music). Springnuts (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because this is a demo album released by the same band, with no claim of meeting WP:MUSIC in article:
- Delete I have difficulty believing in the notability of an album by a band whose article was deleted due to an expired prod. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto on the second album up for deletion. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Album is not yet released, and no claim of meeting WP:Notability or WP:MUSIC in article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I tried adding a speedy template, before I noticed it already had been declined. However, I think this should have been speedied. ( I notice there is a lot of discussing about that on the speedy-talkpage. Given an album is less than a band, it should be more obvious it could be speedied than a band, and a band who is unable to defend an article will never be able to defend an article about one of it's albums. Leave the creator with the job of asking for undeletion of the various album-articles if they ever manage to show notability for the band itself then.) Greswik (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Addendum: see undeletion request at , commons about the album cover: uploader claims to be a part of the band. The band article was made by someone with the same username here. Ie: this is also spam, and COI. Greswik (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Snowball delete both. If the band's not notable, then the album articles don't have a snowball's chance in hell. On top of that, this album hasn't even been released yet, and the other is a demo tape.-h i s r e s e a r c h 02:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Website launched within the past year, with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Of the 91 non-wiki ghits, only a couple refer to this site (basically all the ones listed in the article), and none of those show any notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also WP:COI issues.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable company, probable COI violation, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete no sources found to prove notability, could almost speedy delete under A7 -- pb30<talk> 02:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Marx-O-Larry's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
There is no assertion in the article that this company meets WP:CORP, other than perhaps a weasel ad. A search outside of Knowledge (XXG) yields very little results, virtually all of which are Yellow Pages listings. Aecis 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Aecis 22:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete - no claim of notability and nothing to verify with. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete Non notable. Google search suggests this is a chain of 3 (!) Dutch ice-cream outlets who do not even have a webpage. Arnoutf (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep Marx-O-Larry's is a great ice cream parlor! It might not have a lot of stores or a website, but is has great ice cream. It is the best quality of ice cream in the region of IJmond in the Netherlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkvnkmaeaaa (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT. Simply being good or delicious is not good enough, a company needs to be notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). Aecis 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Marx-O-Larry's is very notbale, but to the people of the region of IJmond. It is their most notable ice cream parlor they have. It might not be a huge chain like Dairy Queen, but they are a local chain. This is what makes their ice cream so great:That it is uniek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkvnkmaeaaa (talk • contribs)
- I know several very, very good homemade ice-cream outlets in Utrecht (among them the 2007 world champion). These are obviously not notable enough, neither is Marx-O-Larry's. Enjoy the ice-cream but it should not be on wiki. Arnoutf (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Marx-O-Larry's is very notbale, but to the people of the region of IJmond. It is their most notable ice cream parlor they have. It might not be a huge chain like Dairy Queen, but they are a local chain. This is what makes their ice cream so great:That it is uniek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkvnkmaeaaa (talk • contribs)
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT. Simply being good or delicious is not good enough, a company needs to be notable enough for Knowledge (XXG). Aecis 18:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
*keep It wouldn't hurt anyone having marx-o-lary's on the web!!! So why take it off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkvnkmaeaaa (talk • contribs) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Stricken as second vote by same editor; the creator of the nominated article. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. DS (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete zero GHITS for the phrase. Appears to be WP:MADEUP WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, Delete per WP:MADEUP or even WP:HOAX.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete unless solid references can be found. I have also tagged the article as a possible hoax. Dhaluza (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Neither side's arguments are inherently weak enough to discount the numbers. Argyriou (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- List of buzzwords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
I think we should workshop the idea of leveraging our partnerships source-wise and proactively enact a paradigm shift of this article to from the long tail of Knowledge (XXG) going forward to rightshoring at Wiktionary. While it has truthiness it is not mission critical encyclopaedia-wise, but would be a value-added outsource to Wiktionary. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Having eyeballed it on the clickthrough, I'd have to say that dewebifying might be what we should action.--Doc 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Buzzkill with extreme prejudice - no objective criteria are possible as to what constitutes a buzzword (and I note that the buzzword article is itself under scrutiny for a variety of issues). Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Beekeep - Objective criteria are pretty clear: V, RS, A. The list, with its properties and attributes of informing the reader with examples in a neutral manner, is not inherently unencyclopedic, does not fail #DIR unless one argues with sophistry, and does not fail #INFO in any way, so it must be shown convincingly that it is not encyclopedic. Can always be merged with parent, but that's an editorial decision outside the scope of this discussion. Note about the quality of the buzzword article is irrelevant; regardless, it would be subjective to have that article list a handful of examples, exclude the rest, and claim to be informative in any substantial way. Note about this being suitable for Wiktionary is irrelevant; Wiktionary, while a endearing sister project, is essentially unrelated in the way me and my bros are unrelated, as content can exist both here and at Wiktionary. –Pomte 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Despite the sourcing (mostly to other websites) it's still one person's selection, apparently of commonly heard phrases during the years 2004-2008, with no definitions and no parameters. This page is more of a dust magnet for people to add the latest catchphrase, but today's "buzzword" is tomorrow's cliche. Encyclopedic articles can be written about, for lack of a better title, buzzwords from a particular year, based on the numerous magazine and newspaper articles that come out every year of words that are "in" and "out". A lot of the ones on here would probably be considered out of date rather than buzzwords. This one needs to be downsized (1998) or voted off the island (2003) or given the pink slip (1958). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- One person's selection? This seems more to have been a collaboration by many editors. Even if this looks like a dust magnet, it is maintained; see Talk:List of buzzwords/Removed content for all the unsourced words excluded from the list. So what if the words go out of date? It's not List of buzzwords in current usage, it's a general list. The historical variations, by your analysis, give this list more value. If you would like to, based on this list, write articles about buzzwords from particular years, go ahead. But those lists not existing yet does not warrant deleting this one, as this is simply an amalgamation of all of them, with parameters implied by policy. Definitions can always be filled in based on the sources. –Pomte 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Groan - per nom. :) The Transhumanist 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'd like to make an observation with respect to Wiktionary... a significant source of new material for Wiktionary are lists from Knowledge (XXG). The longer the list is allowed to grow on Knowledge (XXG) the more significant the contribution is. Lists transferred to Wiktionary don't usually grow much. Once a list is removed from Knowledge (XXG), it doesn't grow here either. Creativity is being wasted and suppressed. It's a shame. These word lists are useful, and Knowledge (XXG) attracts the most traffic/talent, so it would be beneficial to both Wiktionary and Knowledge (XXG) if Knowledge (XXG) allowed development of these lists without having to defend them versus deletion every five minutes. The Transhumanist 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the emphasis of AfDs on debating deletion should change to suggesting and finding solutions. The Transhumanist 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please restrict discussion to whether this article belongs here. It may certainly be useful or underdeveloped at Wiktionary, but it should be kept because it's not unencyclopedic, not those other reasons. –Pomte 06:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - per Pomte. It's a good start. Adding the time period in which each buzzword was in fact a buzzword is a good idea. Perhaps rename the page to List of buzzwords and clichés, and add a lead section that explains the difference between the two. List the terms by year, and let the reader decide which are still buzzwords and which are clichés. The Transhumanist 06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- In other words, do a big bunch of original research, and then do some more original research, and then encourage the reader to do more original research on top of all the original research that's already been done. Great plan. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, in other words, since the line between the two is blurred, leave it blurred. Any reliable source will do to substantiate that a buzzword was at one time a buzzword. As long as we know it is one of the two (buzzword or cliché), we don't have to know which one it is. :) And the list is only "original research" as long as it is unsourced, which presents a developmental dilemma: such a list is in danger of getting deleted unless it is already sourced, but in order to get the most exposure so that it becomes sourced it needs to be posted. As far as I can tell, ninety-five percent of Knowledge (XXG) is unsourced. Luckily, articles can't be deleted fast enough to make a big dent. :-) Eventually, someone will come along and source it -- give that person, whoever Fate decides it will be, a chance. The Transhumanist 08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - Same reasons as raised by Pomte. Additionally, there is an obvious interest in having a pretty well sourced and well maintained list of buzzwords available on Knowledge (XXG) for serious reference and for fun. Just check out the frequent addition of unsourced words and phrases to the main buzzword article (which have lessened since this list was created). Yes, that doesn't mean the list should arbitrarily be kept. But at the same time, it does show quite a few users and web visitors think the list is relevant and useful. The context and age concerns are valid, but those aspects can be added to this page. Deletion seems excessive and unwarranted. And sarcastic insinuations about original research are not constructive. Let's try to keep this discussion civil. --Careax (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- By all means, let's keep the discussion civil, by refraining from making veiled accusations of incivility where no incivility exists in an attempt to discredit the comments of others. WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument for retaining any article. Neither is 'people add junk to the main article so we need someplace to dump it,' also known as better here than there. If material is being inappropriately added to the main article, deal with it in the context of the main article. Don't create or maintain garbage dump articles to keep the main articles "pure." Otto4711 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, perfectly acceptable list that serves as a tool to navigate the wiki. We have Category:Buzzwords as well and lists and categories are complementary, which in this particular case is shown by the addition of references and non-alphabetical sorting in the list. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The existence of a category (WP:WAX) has no bearing on whether this article should remain. Otto4711 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it does, just like categories, lists can be very useful as a way of organizing and navigating the wiki. BTW, please don't toss around acronyms like that without giving any real argument, I can make any argument for keeping this article I want, as long as I give a decent explanation (which I did). You'll love this one: WP:DOSPAGWYA. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The existence of a category (WP:WAX) has no bearing on whether this article should remain. Otto4711 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep appropriate navigational list. Lists are one way of organizing WP content for users. A good way--Categories seem to me only only an internal supplement.DGG (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Most of these don't have entries, and probably never will because Knowledge (XXG) is not a slang dictionary. That's why I proposed moving it to Wiktionary, like we have with other jargon lists. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I do not underestimate the ingenuity of wpedians in writing adequate articles about the others. anyway, there is no requirement for a list to include only blue-linked articles. DGG (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It can be transwikied and still remain here. The Transhumanist 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I am neutral on this AfD, but I get the feeling that if this list was exactly the same without the sources, there would likely be a fairly strong consensus to delete. Thoughts?--h i s r e s e a r c h 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fairly strong? If it were unsourced it would be Speedy Deleted! Jedibob5 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Buzzwords are just to subjective (and large) a category for this list to ever be useful. 06:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs)
- Keep They're sourced to legitimate websites, making them inherently notable, so I see no reason to get rid of this. Could do with a bit of cleanup however. Jedibob5 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. NO FURTHER EDITS, I REPEAT!!
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to changes and references added since beginning of AfD. ···日本穣 02:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Workforce Strategy Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Seems to be mostly advertising, but there does seem to be an assertion of notability. Delete uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM. Reads very much like a company trying to increase their hits online, therefore making wikipedia their inroad to notability. To prove it, a google "news" search reveals exactly zero results for this organization. If they were notable, wouldnt' somebody write about them independently? Keeper | 76 21:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hope you will consider the comments my colleague and I have made in Talk:Workforce Strategy Center in support of the Workforce Strategy Center article. Thank you. Jalssid (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as advertisig. Marlith /C 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This seems to be a notable entity per WP:CORP, being covered to some extent in various significant publications. The problem is not with the entity but with the writing, which sounded too much like a press release; I have edited it somewhat to correct this. Herostratus (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J-ſtanUser page 22:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)- Comment. Herostratus (and anyone else), do you have any links that you could provide that show coverage in various significant publications? I wasn't able to find any. Keeper | 76 22:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep notwithstanding my deletionist tendencies it does seem to be well enough sourced (now - the article has been improved very recently) to show a degree of Wiki-notabilty. Springnuts (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. First, thank you all for your comments and for your help with the article. As you can probably tell, we are new to this. In addition to the current links in the article, Workforce Strategy Center has received coverage from major publications that either charge a fee for access to their archives or (so far as we can tell) no longer have their articles available online. For example, we have been written up a number of times in The Chronicle of Higher Education which charges for access to their archived stories. Is there a way stories such as the ones in The Chronicle might be referenced in the article? I would be happy to provide citations. Thanks. Jalssid (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 00:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is absolutely OK to use Chronicle of Higher Education and other paid sources for references. External links must be available without charge, but not references--they can come from any published source, print or online, paid access or free access, English on non-english, as long as they are available in some way to the public.CHE is available in thousands of libraries. and many people here (including me) can provide copies of individual online articles to individuals use in writing or verifying an article. Once you have, them, you can include a short quote from them of a sentence or so to demonstrate the notability of make a point in the article. You presumably have an archive of where stories on you have appeared. Just use them. DGG (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge and redirect to a list of characters for the Onion. Notability independant of the Onion cannot be established, so a merge makes the most sense; as Sh76us noted, as a major character in a notable work, it can certainly stand in a list. David Fuchs 18:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such just repeats the contents of articles on the onion, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- I'm not 100% convinced myself that this character is worthy of a full article, but if we had an article on recurring characters in the Onion, it would make sense to merge to that. Haikupoet (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Haikupoet. Several of the articles about Onion characters have the same message, surely if there was one article for all of them, with redirects, that would be acceptable? --Dyefade (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to The Onion as a viable search term. Google search reveals nada in terms of independent notability outside the "onion universe". If not redirect, then I say delete. Keeper | 76 21:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per notability. Notability seems to be the hardest of the inclusion criteria to satisfy sadly. Marlith /C 02:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep As a recurring fictitious character in a major publication, he warrants a page every bit as much as any other fictitious character in any TV show or movie. Sh76us (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Actually, Sh76us, there is a lot of contention as to whether most fictional characters warrant a page or not. The key is referencing that shows that the specific subject matter, in this case Don Turnbee, warrants an article. I've done a google search (albeit not exhaustive), linked above, and couldn't find anything substantive. I recommend reading, if you haven't, the discussions happening revolving around WP:FICT, including the talk page regarding the inclusion criteria for fictional characters, episodes, villains, heroes... And also if you haven't, please read WP:WAX. Cheers, Keeper | 76 15:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Full Spectrum Warrior. Per the GFDL, it's not appropriate to delete pages when a merge has been performed; the history has to remain so that the content is attributable to the original author. Walton 19:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing WP:RS, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition that should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we merege the article with Full Spectrum Warrior but shorten down? SG2090 (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you wish, though it seems like there is little worth transferring. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A non notable fiction country. Tavix (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete I've just merged it to the FSW article, it's fine to delete now EJB341 (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speaker-to-Animals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such this information is just plot repetition and original research, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Question Did you suggest or consider redirecting this to the book(s) where this character appeared in? 68.101.22.132 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep & cleanup - Chmeee (same charactor) is a central charactor in 2 of the 4 books and Cameo's in the other 2. I would suggest a serious cleanup and better Cites would go a long way for this article. (aside - where exactly would you suggest a redirect be pointed to?) Exit2DOS2000 07:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as per Exit2d. Edward321 (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as an apparently significant character. i would like to see the nominator explain why the reason applies to this particular article--the same specific nomination is being used for everything being nominated, so I wonder whether the individual nature of the articles is being considered. DGG (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- ...Because they are all the same? In-universe plot repetition with no demonstration, and in most cases no hope, of notability? It's the same story, why would I tell a different one? For fun? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete JERRY contribs 20:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Random Task (Austin Powers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just plot repetition of the appearance of this minor Austin Powers character from the first movie, and as such is pure duplication and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to Austin Powers or the specific movie. JJL (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Memorable villain from a blockbuster film franchise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 17:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as an non notable character. Marlith /C 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, character addressed in Characters in Austin Powers, doesn't merit its own article. PKT (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator, without dissent. Non-admin closure. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am tagging this article for deletion for several reasons.
-There are four sources mentioned for 4 sentences among several hundred. It would be more work to find sources for these statements than to delete the page and start over methodically.
-There are numerous formatting and spelling errors, which detract from the article.
-Much of the information given is covered in other articles. This blatant overlap must be stopped.
Jokermole (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. No valid rationale for deletion - the fact that an article is in need of improvement is not a reason for deleting it. I agree that it could do with more sources than simple dictionary definitions, but this is an historically important piece of apparatus that should have an article. Tevildo (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Tevildo above. None of the reasons given are part of deletion policy. If it needs some work that's an editorial issue, not a deletion issue.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - there is no reason for deletion listed. We should fix problems, not remove articles that have them. matt91486 (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. The only thing I've got to add to the comments above is the word "speedy". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. per rationale above. Also, please note that User:Jokermole's first contribution (and only besides his/her own user/talkpages) is this AfD request. May or may not be relevant, but it smells like xe's been wearing shoes too long on a hot day. Keeper | 76 21:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok guys. I understand your comments, and therefore believe that Keep is the best option. I am actually not a new user, but I have done my edits mostly anonymously from another ip. This account is NOT a sock puppet. Jokermole (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you strike out the nomination and note that it's withdrawn it should get closed reasonably quickly.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Article has been moved to a non-PEACOCK title. I think the unverified statement tag is appropriate, as there are some unverified claims which shouldn't be left unverified. J-ſtanUser page 22:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- List of recordings with a prominent flanging effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Predominantly unsourced WP:Original research, and WP:LISTCRUFT. Oli Filth 21:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - the article doesn't have an AfD tag on it. The Transhumanist 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks for spotting! Oli Filth 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, or merge into flanging - I found the list very interesting - this is the very type of feature that puts Knowledge (XXG) above all other encyclopedias. It's organic. The list could be very useful for someone studying flanging effects in music, and therefore is not listcruft. And it appears some work has been done on gathering references. Also, the songs themselves are a source for verifiability. Anyone can check a song for flanging, and songs are easily accessible in most cases. It's analogous to quoting a movie, and citing the movie as the source for the quote. This list should be kept, or added to the article flanging as "Examples of recordings with a prominent flanging effect". Is there any chance of getting permission from the publishers to present sound clips from these songs? That would really make the list useful. The Transhumanist 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortuantely, WP:INTERESTING is not a reason for keeping an article.
- I see your point on it not being cruft, but due to the haphazard way the list has been compiled, it seems almost trivial (not least because there's no criteria for how notable a song has to be to be included), so I stand by my opinion.
- The songs are not a source for verifiability; in many cases it's open to interpretation as to whether a particular effect is flanger, chorus, phaser, echo, or just a trick of microphone placement; see some of the discussions on the article's talk page. Any such inference without a reliable source is pure OR.
- As for merging into Flanging, this list was originally part of that article, but was split out after a discussion there; see Talk:Flanging#Recordings with a prominent flanging effect. Incidentally, that conversation gives an example of the "open to interpetation" I refer to, as well as echoing my opinion that it's crufty. Oli Filth 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Concerning notability, if a song is notable, then it is notable enough to be listed on Knowledge (XXG). Notability requirements are not typically set in specific articles, they are set by WP:N. I interpreted the word "prominent" in the article's title to refer to the acoustics of the effect rather than to the popularity of the sample. That word could easily be removed. The nobability problem is tied into the OR issue, and both are solved by providing sources. Let the article be sourced. The Transhumanist 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- If suitable sources can be found, I agree that this would imply the songs in question are probably satisfactorily notable. As for the use of "prominent"; on the one hand its use leads to subjectivity. On the other hand, without such a criterion, then there's a million songs out there that will have some form of flanging added to some extent during mastering. Oli Filth 22:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Concerning notability, if a song is notable, then it is notable enough to be listed on Knowledge (XXG). Notability requirements are not typically set in specific articles, they are set by WP:N. I interpreted the word "prominent" in the article's title to refer to the acoustics of the effect rather than to the popularity of the sample. That word could easily be removed. The nobability problem is tied into the OR issue, and both are solved by providing sources. Let the article be sourced. The Transhumanist 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as original deprodder despite the concerns I raised on the talkpage, and my general dislike of lists. This is a sourced (partially, but the remainder could be sourced by a dedicated editor with a copy of The Rough Guide to Music), interesting and useful list. (Before anyone starts quoting ATA at me, can I remind them that that's a personal essay not a policy.) As TTH says, this kind of list is one of the reasons Knowledge (XXG) shines while the wannabes fall by the wayside; something that will never be included in Britannica or even Knol, but is potentially very valuable to someone researching the subject. I'm baffled by the use of WP:LISTCRUFT as a nomination reason - quite aside from the fact that LC is, again, a personal essay, this is the type of list specifically not considered as "listcruft" in that essay; a parent article exists, and the list would be disproportionately long as part of the parent article. — iridescent 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I find the list encyclopaedic for the reasons pointed out by The Transhumanist. Although there's likely a component of original research (which is why I tagged the article as such), with only a couple hours of research, I was able to cite a dozen of the entries, leading me to believe that many more of the entries could easily be cited as well; I just haven't had the time to continue work on the list. dissolve 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment on finding sources, fair enough. But is anyone likely to do this? The article has been tagged as OR for months, and only 12 out of 80 or so have had sources found (no disrespect intended to the effort you put in, though!). I guess we could remove all the unsourced items, but that hardly leads a very useful, encyclopaedic, or comprehensive list. Oli Filth 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The sources seem to have been tracked down in November, just over a month ago. So it seems very likely that more sources could be forthcoming. Maybe the editor who provided those sources would be willing to provide some more. :) Also, notices could be placed on the relevant noticeboards to recruit help to source this article. There are many alternatives to deletion that are no more cumbersome than participating in this discussion. (hint hint wink wink concerning the approach taken). The Transhumanist 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- TTH is right though - for something like this, the songs are the source. (Try removing the material directly sourced from the subject of the article here, for example — although it might provide an interesting bit of wikidrama.) — iridescent 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand the Harry Potter analogy! However, the songs cannot be the source if one cannot discern whether the effect is one of several that sound similar (as I mentioned above), which may be the case even for quite strong-sounding use of one of these effects. A (somewhat weak) analogy would be a "list of songs recorded with a Fender Telecaster". Sure, it has a fairly recognisable sound, and I bet we could start such a list, and say "the songs themselevs are the sources". But there's a dozen ways of replicating that sound; without authoritative sources, it would be OR. Oli Filth 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- TTH is right though - for something like this, the songs are the source. (Try removing the material directly sourced from the subject of the article here, for example — although it might provide an interesting bit of wikidrama.) — iridescent 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I posted my last version of the list from the few days I worked on it in November 2007. It should address some of the concerns with organization of the list into a timeline and additional references. Although more references are needed, I think it illustrates that much of the list is citable with published secondary sources. Perusing the sources will also indicate the notability of the subject matter. dissolve 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The sources seem to have been tracked down in November, just over a month ago. So it seems very likely that more sources could be forthcoming. Maybe the editor who provided those sources would be willing to provide some more. :) Also, notices could be placed on the relevant noticeboards to recruit help to source this article. There are many alternatives to deletion that are no more cumbersome than participating in this discussion. (hint hint wink wink concerning the approach taken). The Transhumanist 22:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding your comment on finding sources, fair enough. But is anyone likely to do this? The article has been tagged as OR for months, and only 12 out of 80 or so have had sources found (no disrespect intended to the effort you put in, though!). I guess we could remove all the unsourced items, but that hardly leads a very useful, encyclopaedic, or comprehensive list. Oli Filth 22:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per The Transhumanist. This is actually a well put-together list. Tavix (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- But 75% unsourced... Oli Filth 00:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - there is no possible objective criterion as to whether a flanging effect is "prominent" or not. That in itself would mandate the relocation of this article to List of articles with a flanging effect. However, even with that move the list is still a directory of loosely-associated topics. The inclusion of a particular instrument, sound or sound effect in a song does not create any sort of encyclopedic relationship between the songs that include the effect in question. We have deleted any number of similar lists of songs that include particular instruments or sounds. Otto4711 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral I was the user who "created" this article by detaching it from the article Flanging. It had become too long for the main article and contained some non-notable and unverified examples. Generally, lists on their own are not good Knowledge (XXG) writing style, so it would not be a great loss for this article to be deleted. --♦IanMacM♦ 08:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename based on Transhumanist arguments and User:Dissolve's citations. Should be renamed to List of recordings with a flanging effect. The word prominent is a weasel word in this instance (is 15% of the recording "flanged", or 50%? What makes it prominent? Is there a threshold?) A vague adjective doesn't belong in the title of an article, IMO. Keeper | 76 22:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Addendum. I think I meant WP:PEACOCK there, not WP:WEASEL. In fact, I'm sure I meant peacock. Keeper | 76 22:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There were already a dozen cites in this article when it was nominated for AfD ( there's 26 right at the moment ). I really have to question "unreferenced" as a reason for deletion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because each of the items in the list is completely independent of the others (hence Otto4711's comment above), and so each needs its own reference. I do appreciate that there are now many more cited items, but what do we do with the 55 or so that are still uncited? Oli Filth 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wait. I've always heard that "patience is a virtue". The Transhumanist 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. But being a cold-hearted editor, I've also heard "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long" (WP:V)! If this AfD closes as a keep, I would put money on the majority of the remaining items never being sourced by anyone. Oli Filth 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Luckily, "There is no deadline.". dissolve 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oli, you've edited a completely unsourced article called List of chief executive officers 33 times, and yet you haven't nominated that list for deletion. There are articles you've edited even more than that which are also predominantly unsourced. It appears you are applying WP:VER selectively. In your own words you are "cold-hearted", so why are you giving those pages special treatment? Why do those deserve to remain on Knowledge (XXG) and this one does not? The Transhumanist 11:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your observation is correct; however, my only edits to that article have been to remove red-links or non-links. Any items I haven't touched are linked to existing WP articles, each of which (I assume, but haven't checked) describes the individual as a CEO, and I assume would've been deleted if incorrect or non-notable. IMHO, it's overkill to directly source list articles which simply collate links to other WP articles which confirm membership of the list, e.g. List of musical instruments, List of proteins. This list, however, is different, in that even if each of the items had its own article, they wouldn't all say "This song used a flanger...". Oli Filth 13:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good answer. I agree that the items in the list should be sourced within a reasonable time. The Transhumanist 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Your observation is correct; however, my only edits to that article have been to remove red-links or non-links. Any items I haven't touched are linked to existing WP articles, each of which (I assume, but haven't checked) describes the individual as a CEO, and I assume would've been deleted if incorrect or non-notable. IMHO, it's overkill to directly source list articles which simply collate links to other WP articles which confirm membership of the list, e.g. List of musical instruments, List of proteins. This list, however, is different, in that even if each of the items had its own article, they wouldn't all say "This song used a flanger...". Oli Filth 13:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. But being a cold-hearted editor, I've also heard "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long" (WP:V)! If this AfD closes as a keep, I would put money on the majority of the remaining items never being sourced by anyone. Oli Filth 01:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wait. I've always heard that "patience is a virtue". The Transhumanist 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because each of the items in the list is completely independent of the others (hence Otto4711's comment above), and so each needs its own reference. I do appreciate that there are now many more cited items, but what do we do with the 55 or so that are still uncited? Oli Filth 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - articles similar to this one that have been deleted include but are not limited to: List of musical releases featuring a vocoder; List of songs featuring a theremin; List of sampled songs. There is no difference between those lists of songs featuring a particular type of instrument or sound and this one. Otto4711 (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn (with no other opinions advocating deletion or merge). -Hit bull, win steak 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Fails WP:N, no third party sources, do we really need an article about every football coach at every university? RichardΩ612 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep - The school is a notable enough athletics program (D1-AA) that the head coach articles meet notability. Sources shouldn't be too difficult to find, either. I found this here with no real effort at all. matt91486 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Withdrawn. Now that a source has been found it no longer qualifies for deletion. Sorry, how could I have missed that! ><RichardΩ612 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Declined the speedy on this because the article claims notability in its statement that the band had toured in Europe. However, there just aren't many reliable sources out there that I was able to find in a quick hunt to indicate that they're notable, so bringing it here for discussion. My opinion would bedelete unless someone finds more sources. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non notable band. Funeral 21:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak delete appears not notable enough for an article, WP:MUSIC would require two albums on a major (one of the big four) or well known independent label.--h i s r e s e a r c h 03:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Bongwarrior (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Dr. Elizabeth Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Word-for-word copy of . May not be a copyvio since that's a US federal gov't website, but I'm not sure. Dougie WII (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I am an employee of HRSA creating this page to link it internally from the HRSA wiki page. Can you please let me know what should be done to keep this page from being deleted. Thanks. --Mulysse (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Knowledge (XXG) is not meant to be a free web host for your organization, but since this person must be considered notable and worthy of inclusion I guess you need to show that this document is in the public domain as a work of the U.S. government, or rewrite the article in your own words citing verifiable, reliable 3rd party sources. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep unless it's a copyright violation. Rename without "Dr." Fg2 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep notable position; fully agree with above. JJL (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep notable, and expand with outside sources. The source is not copyvio--well established principle. DGG (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep as notable and not a copyvio. I'll move it if nobody else wants to do the dirty deed. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Elizabeth Duke already exists as a redirect to a manufacturor. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I would suggest moving this article over the existing redirect, then hatlinking this biography article to the manufacturer. Absent compelling reason otherwise, biographies should probably be primary targets. Serpent's Choice (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bionicle society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
original research plot summary about a non-notable fictional universe. There is no real world context and all sources are wither primary or from a forum. Ridernyc (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fascinating and comprehensive, but fails WP:RS and WP:FICT. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable and WP:OR. Malinaccier (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Master of Puppets. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: See the previous version. This article does not assert the notability of the subject or provide any sources. I doubt that any reliable sources will be found after more than two years of its existence. (In a curious historical footnote, the author of this article was banned 8 days later by an administrator who is himself long gone.) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete - a The Jerky Boys want to be, with little to no evidence that he even exsists, let alone is notable --T-rex 00:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete due to lack of reliable sources necessary to satisfy WP:N and WP:V. ···日本穣 02:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Teen pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Page is unreferenced but as a result also completely fails to establish notability of the subject as a notable form of pornography. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Whoever wrote the article has failed to convince me that teen pornography is a topic independent of pornography in general. The lack of references really hurts. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete The claim to notability in the article is that teen pornography is a popular subject in pornographic films, magazines, etc. Because it is unreferenced, that claim is original research and therefore the article fails to properly assert notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Almost as redundant as an article on "sexual pornography" would be. Tevildo (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Looks pretty well referenced now. I know this is WP:WAX, but do you really think that panda pornography (or any other pornographic sub-genre) is more worthy of a Knowledge (XXG) article than teen pornography? I know that 'teen porn' is a vague and subjectively defined sub-genre of porn (not all of the performers are teens - and some pornography featuring teenagers doesn't live up to the stereotypes that so-called 'teen' pornography portrays), and that this has the strong potential to be a magnet for original research, but it does have seven different sources.--h i s r e s e a r c h 01:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Eight. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep -- The references provided in this article indicate sufficient coverage of this subject in third-party reliable sources as to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline. John254 07:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. It would seem that at this point the article has established references that satisfy WP:V which assert significant independent coverage. SorryGuy Talk 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. There could be an article on this topic, if there were any reliable sources writing about it. But there aren't. As it is currently, the article appears to be mostly a list of titles of porn magazines. The sources in the article mention the topic only tangentially, mostly to indicate either that the models are older and pretending to be teens, or that they are children and the material is illegal. Both of those topics are covered in child pornography and pornography; there is no separate topic of "teen pornography", it's just a term used to sell magazines or web subscriptions. The topic does not satisfy WP:N or WP:V; the article should be deleted. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This looks like a serious article with reliable sources. --JaapBoBo (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Did you look at the sources themselves to determine if they're reliable an on-topic? For example, in the following paragraph, what information in the footnote supports the content of this text from the article?
- The reissue of Larry Flynts' Barely Legal magazine in 1993 spawned copycat magazines with titles such as Hawk, Tight, and Barely 18. Barely Legal itself has diversified into a popular video series of the same name (which ranked #20 in Adult Video News' Top 40 Rentals on 1999-11-22), alongside titles such as Virgin Stories, Cherries, Rookie Cookies, Cherry Poppers, Young and Anal, Cheerleader Confessions, and Young, Dumb and Full of Cum. *
- * Karlyn, Kathleen Rowe (Fall 2004). ""Too Close for Comfort": American Beauty and the Incest Motif". Cinema Journal. 44 (1). University of Texas Press: 69–93.</ref>
- Does the study in the footnote mention Young, Dumb and Full of Cum? I decided to check it out. Not only does the reference not mention that magazine, it also doesn't mention Young and Anal. It turns out, the study is an analysis of the film "American Beauty" and the way in which the film shows the "structure of father-daughter incest, working through displacement, has provided a narrative that links a series of recent cultural developments: the sexualization of ever-younger girls, cinema's erasure of mothers and of career women as sympathetic figures, and efforts to remasculinize the middle-aged white male." Any connection between that study and the topic of this article would be WP:OR because the study does not discuss "teen pornography". Now that I've done the work of confirming that the source is mis-quoted, I'll remove it from the article. If anyone finds something in that source that I missed, that specifically addresses teen pornography, they are welcome to re-add the footnote. But if so, please provide an exact quote on the talk page so it can be verified. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. In further reviewing the three sources currently in this article (that as noted above do not directly address the topic of "teen pornography" but discuss it mostly in relation to child pornography), the sources show two different types of pornography that use the word "teen". One type is simply ordinary pornography, with adult models using dress and make-up to portray young teens. As a sub-genre, along with hundreds of other subgenres, that can easily be covered in the main pornography article. The other type uses underage models who are fraudulently documented as adults and described as "teens". That is actually child pornography; its practice of should be covered in that article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- McDonald's urban legends (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article was previously nominated for deletion in November 2006, and was kept as "no consensus" despite a slight majority in favor of deletion. Nine of the ten references in the article do not refer at all to the rumors themselves, but rather to rebuttals against those rumors. The one source of a rumor is a Snopes article which does not establish notability. Most of the rumors are unverified, which is why they're just silly internet rumors in the first place. Knowledge (XXG) should not give undue weight to such silliness. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- McDonald's was forced to respond to several of those rumours; a number were featured in reputable newspapers worldwide. I don't think it gets much better than that in terms of veracity or notability. Of course there is no original source for an urban myth; that is the whole point of requiring secondary sources. Since when was not citing a primary source considered a good reason for deletion? Johnleemk | Talk 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - My question is, does the McDonalds response to the rumours acknowledge the rumours notability to a sufficient extent? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Judgesurreal777, I would think so. And I would think that a rebuttal of a rumor would sufficiently estblish the rumor's existance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quasirandom (talk • contribs) 22:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - existence does not equal notability. Otto4711 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Urban legends are only really citeable in two kinds of source: works by folklorists and rebuttals to rumors. Remove any uncited rumors, and leave the cited ones. --Phirazo 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep. Rebuttals of rumours are perfectly acceptable primary evidence that the rumours existed and were notable (so notable that they needed rebuttal: I can't think of better evidence for the notability of rumours). To establish secondary-source notability, though, it would be nice to have citations of something like Jan Harold Brunvand's Encyclopedia of Urban Legends (Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 2001). Anybody have access to a copy? Things put into hamburgers (or milkshakes, or industrially produced apple pies) are a significant part of modern folklore - and should be covered as such, not as part of the MacDonalds article. If a merge were in order, it ought to be to an article on urban legends. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - as per Paularblaster, a rebuttal is a perfectly good secondary source for a rumour; this article is well referenced (in fact, rather better referenced than McDonald's legal cases, for example); it is only one of at least 50 McDonald's-related articles on Knowledge (XXG), so the "undue weight" argument does not apply. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, I agree with the above, rebuttals in public constitute both proof of the rumors' existence, and that it provoked corporate responses in the media shows notability. ThuranX (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Spartaz 22:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Concordia class fleet carrier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Short article about a class of fictional spacecraft. There are no secondary sources to establish real-world notability, as required by Knowledge (XXG):Notability and Knowledge (XXG):Notability (fiction). The article consists solely of a list of specifications and a list of fictional vehicles in the class. This is the type of content one expects to find in a game guide, which Knowledge (XXG) is not. Pagrashtak 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pagrashtak 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - WP:GAMECRUFT User:Krator (t c) 01:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - No notability outside of the game universe. Marasmusine (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Shirahadasha (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Rasmus Højengaard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete or Possible Merge to the Hitman (series). While he's the director of a notable video game series, I didn't even learn who he was until I did actual research. Basically, no notability. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm aware of WP:IDONTKNOWIT, but the fact remains that I only discovered who this individual was when I found interviews of his that weren't even about him, and if notability is asserted only by mere association with one notable element, then I know plenty of deleted articles that shouldn't have been deleted, probably 99% of the ones that weren't blatant crap or lies. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 03:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- KeepWell isn't that usually the case with anything? Either you know it or you will get to know it by doing research? ♣ 90.184.154.200 (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 90.184.154.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep I didn't have to google, and I never heard of him before either. I did go to this site called Knowledge (XXG), however, and read the article and all the citations that were actually about him and not just his games ;) Pharmboy (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can go one the Internet and find tons of sources about someone. That doesn't make him notable. And most, if not all, of the sources aren't even about him. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But as I stated, the articles ARE about him, interviews with him. WP:V says the article must be verifiable, not verified. Lack of citations is a reason to improve, not delete. In this case, the references are several, in place and valid. Pharmboy (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- To me, that merits a merge, not an article. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But as I stated, the articles ARE about him, interviews with him. WP:V says the article must be verifiable, not verified. Lack of citations is a reason to improve, not delete. In this case, the references are several, in place and valid. Pharmboy (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep. Nomination is a poor argument. The article is referenced, but to primary sources and interviews, which are generally not by themselves sufficient to show notability. On the other hand he does have a strong-ish CV. I'd like to see better sources, but I couldn't find any in Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 20:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's my point. I'll admit, I worded my argument poorly, but the fact remains that this person is not notable. I don't know anything about Joe Glazer, but when research is done (outside of Knowledge (XXG), mind you) I learn that he is a folksinger and historian of folksongs who devoted his life to labor unions. I found this info through Google, and I found substantially less information about Rasmus doing a similar search. I know Google hits mean shit, but come on. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did similar research and found out that Rasmus Højengaard designed an online investment platform to help further entrepreneurship in development countries, by merging game philosophy with micro financing. The platform is called www.myc4.com and has a very original take on "charity". That's notable I believe? Ussphilips (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. The subject itself fails WP:N. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh well - I added it to the article anyways. Thought it was interesting. Ussphilips (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. The subject itself fails WP:N. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did similar research and found out that Rasmus Højengaard designed an online investment platform to help further entrepreneurship in development countries, by merging game philosophy with micro financing. The platform is called www.myc4.com and has a very original take on "charity". That's notable I believe? Ussphilips (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's my point. I'll admit, I worded my argument poorly, but the fact remains that this person is not notable. I don't know anything about Joe Glazer, but when research is done (outside of Knowledge (XXG), mind you) I learn that he is a folksinger and historian of folksongs who devoted his life to labor unions. I found this info through Google, and I found substantially less information about Rasmus doing a similar search. I know Google hits mean shit, but come on. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hitman Blood Money is an exceptionally good game and I believe that the person who was behind it deserves a worthy mention. Definately a keep. (this wasn't supposed to be a 2nd vote). 90.184.154.200 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.154.200 (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — 90.184.154.200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Popularity isn't notability. I'm sure the inventor of pork skins feels the same way, but just because his product is popular doesn't mean he can have his own article. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I feel I have to comment on that one. On that note you say that a movie director is not worth an article either or? What differentiates good games, films and music from pork skins, is the artistic element of the product, yes? Ussphilips (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a different story if there was sufficient press coverage over the subject and if the subject had done multiple sucessful games outside of the series or something to that effect. There is press coverage and reliable secondary sources for movie directors. And artistic element has nothing to do with notability. I can find artistic value in pile of dog crap; that doesn't mean an article is gonna be made on it. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can find several articles on musicians for example that are here but on whom you can basically only find info, if you go to their instrument related web pages. Studio drummers to mention an example. What makes a semi famous rock drummer notable? Not much in my oppinion...90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that other crap exists doesn't mean crap. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- True, but that doesn't render my argument irrelevant. It just turns your's very subjective.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, it does, as far as saying other articles exist goes. These other articles can get deleted just like any other article. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but that's where I think you and I fundamentally disagree (which could make me a very bad boy within the world of WP, I admit), but I don't think that the content of WP should be entirely decided by technicalities and systematic boundries.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But anyways(!) - it's not like it matters to me that much. I just found an article that I found interesting that I noticed was up for deletion and I felt a little annoyed by it :-). Do what you gotta do men, my bag or arguments is empty.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but that's where I think you and I fundamentally disagree (which could make me a very bad boy within the world of WP, I admit), but I don't think that the content of WP should be entirely decided by technicalities and systematic boundries.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Technically, it does, as far as saying other articles exist goes. These other articles can get deleted just like any other article. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- True, but that doesn't render my argument irrelevant. It just turns your's very subjective.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that other crap exists doesn't mean crap. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can find several articles on musicians for example that are here but on whom you can basically only find info, if you go to their instrument related web pages. Studio drummers to mention an example. What makes a semi famous rock drummer notable? Not much in my oppinion...90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes but if you can also find commercial value in a pile of crap you definitely got yourself an article ;-). 90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- It would be a different story if there was sufficient press coverage over the subject and if the subject had done multiple sucessful games outside of the series or something to that effect. There is press coverage and reliable secondary sources for movie directors. And artistic element has nothing to do with notability. I can find artistic value in pile of dog crap; that doesn't mean an article is gonna be made on it. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 16:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I feel I have to comment on that one. On that note you say that a movie director is not worth an article either or? What differentiates good games, films and music from pork skins, is the artistic element of the product, yes? Ussphilips (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Popularity isn't notability. I'm sure the inventor of pork skins feels the same way, but just because his product is popular doesn't mean he can have his own article. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 08:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The reason for submitting it was the same as the above argument. Ussphilips (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — Ussphillips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete. No notability is shown. Being a director of one notable video game isn't enough for an article. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
Note that IP 90.184.154.200 has voted twice. I don't know if this is just an misunderstanding of AfDs or if this was an attempt to create more keep votes. If it's the latter, I feel his votes should be dismissed.♣ Klptyzm ♣ 02:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)- Ok. It's been cleared up. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 08:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's notable enough to keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.122.3.244 (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — 91.122.3.244 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep First of all I dont think it's quantity that makes something notable. Second I think that a person who directs a game or a movie puts some of his or her "soul" into that product. That by definition makes the person behind it interesting. Pepsyk (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Pepsyk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Interesting how a new user such as yourself took interest in an AfD for his or her first 2 edits... very interesting..... ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Funny how you seem to just want to find a way to nullify the other comments. Cheer up dude :-). I think your main arguments seem to derive from the importance of quantity, which to me seems a little askew. But that might just be me?90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- All I'm doing is following my intuition and supporting that decision; the fact remains that this user, who is supposedly "new," voted in an AfD for their first edit. I didn't even know what an AfD was when I began to edit. Perhaps you should better support your argument instead and preventing me from nullifying comments. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But my dear friend, I am. I feel towards this article as I feel towards seeing a movie that I like, and when it's over I wanna know who made it, because I didn't expect the movie to be as good as it was. That's how I felt towards the game when I played it. I wanted to know who was behind it, because I felt it had a different "vibe" than the previous games. And BEHOLD - it was another Game Director! And BEHOLD I read it here - on WP(!), and then saw at the same time that you wanted to delete the article, and I decided to join the debate...90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and if it will make people feel better, I'd be happy to make an account to give my arguments some extra "punch". All in good spirit :-).90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Textbook example of WP:ILIKEIT like I stated below. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, my arguments might not be within the boundries of a certified WP argument, but it's nonetheless how I feel towards it. And it's the quality and originality of the content (not that I like it) that makes me wanna go "behind the scenes" and pursue the inclusion of the article.90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Textbook example of WP:ILIKEIT like I stated below. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh and if it will make people feel better, I'd be happy to make an account to give my arguments some extra "punch". All in good spirit :-).90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- But my dear friend, I am. I feel towards this article as I feel towards seeing a movie that I like, and when it's over I wanna know who made it, because I didn't expect the movie to be as good as it was. That's how I felt towards the game when I played it. I wanted to know who was behind it, because I felt it had a different "vibe" than the previous games. And BEHOLD - it was another Game Director! And BEHOLD I read it here - on WP(!), and then saw at the same time that you wanted to delete the article, and I decided to join the debate...90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- All I'm doing is following my intuition and supporting that decision; the fact remains that this user, who is supposedly "new," voted in an AfD for their first edit. I didn't even know what an AfD was when I began to edit. Perhaps you should better support your argument instead and preventing me from nullifying comments. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Funny how you seem to just want to find a way to nullify the other comments. Cheer up dude :-). I think your main arguments seem to derive from the importance of quantity, which to me seems a little askew. But that might just be me?90.184.154.200 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting how a new user such as yourself took interest in an AfD for his or her first 2 edits... very interesting..... ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 16:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm seeing a lot of "I thinks" and WP:ILIKEIT instead of genuine arguments. None of the "Keep" votes have validly supported their viewpoint. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 16:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment At this time, there are 8 votes and 14 comments by the
articleAFD creator. Seems a bit out of whack and like a bludgening of the AFD. Pharmboy (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)- What do you mean with "bludgening" Pharmboy?90.184.154.200 (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply From the Urban Dictionary: Bludgen - To beat powerfully with force with an object of great mass. Pharmboy (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply Oh, I know what it means thank you - I meant to ask how you used it? What was receiving the beating? The concept of AFD or the actual article? Thanks :-).90.184.154.200 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just who exactly are you referring to? ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 20:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are the only one with that many comment entries, asking seems kind of pointless and begging for argument, which I will not oblige you with. It isn't necessary (or desirable) to debate every person who offers an opinion here. Pharmboy (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I did so mainly because of the votes that appeared canvassed and by an "editor" who only has 2 edits, both of which are in this AfD. I've seen things like this happen before and I don't want them to happen again when I can help it. I'll admit, I've posted a large amount of comments, but at the same time, these comments were replied to which prompted me to defend my viewpoint. I honestly didn't expect myself to post so many comments. I just wanted to do my best to show how, in my opinion, how some of the "keep" votes were flawed. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Damn, my first submission to WP and I feel like I've removed the lowest can in a huge can-pyramid in a supermarket. How it's possible to be so rule-bound is beyond me and defies the purpose of WP to some extent (in my oppinion). Remove the sodding article if it's such a big deal. I just believe it deserves to be there for all the reasons that dear Mr. Anonymous, Pharmboy and myself put on the table :-). This is a typical example of what happens to a "free for all" project that starts being governed. It ends up being OVER-governed... A little sad if you ask me. Ussphilips (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You make it seem like the article is being deleted already; nothing is final yet. Like I said, I'm doing what I feel is right in my own opinion, which I feel is partly what Knowledge (XXG) is about. It's not like my viewpoint is the best or correct. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not to make it personal in any way, because you are of course entitled to your opinion. But reading through the debate, I sense an almost hostile approach when you argue against people who don't share your opinion, and that takes the fun out of fun and replaces it with poppycock. That said, I can see your points of view and understand them. I just don't think they weigh out the countering arguments. Dude, have a nice day/night wherever you're from and let's venture on with a smile on our small chubby faces!Ussphilips (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I hear you. It does look lik that and I really didn't intend for it to appear that way. Part of it stems from this incident I had a long time ago with a handful of users and it was honestly the most extreme and unnecessary thing I've seen in my entire life and it revolved around sockpuppeting, which now aggravates the crap out of me. It's just a bit of a hotbutton for me, especially when I see "new" users doing what the above user did. I apologize if it seemed like I was biting people's heads off. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not to make it personal in any way, because you are of course entitled to your opinion. But reading through the debate, I sense an almost hostile approach when you argue against people who don't share your opinion, and that takes the fun out of fun and replaces it with poppycock. That said, I can see your points of view and understand them. I just don't think they weigh out the countering arguments. Dude, have a nice day/night wherever you're from and let's venture on with a smile on our small chubby faces!Ussphilips (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You make it seem like the article is being deleted already; nothing is final yet. Like I said, I'm doing what I feel is right in my own opinion, which I feel is partly what Knowledge (XXG) is about. It's not like my viewpoint is the best or correct. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 21:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Damn, my first submission to WP and I feel like I've removed the lowest can in a huge can-pyramid in a supermarket. How it's possible to be so rule-bound is beyond me and defies the purpose of WP to some extent (in my oppinion). Remove the sodding article if it's such a big deal. I just believe it deserves to be there for all the reasons that dear Mr. Anonymous, Pharmboy and myself put on the table :-). This is a typical example of what happens to a "free for all" project that starts being governed. It ends up being OVER-governed... A little sad if you ask me. Ussphilips (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I did so mainly because of the votes that appeared canvassed and by an "editor" who only has 2 edits, both of which are in this AfD. I've seen things like this happen before and I don't want them to happen again when I can help it. I'll admit, I've posted a large amount of comments, but at the same time, these comments were replied to which prompted me to defend my viewpoint. I honestly didn't expect myself to post so many comments. I just wanted to do my best to show how, in my opinion, how some of the "keep" votes were flawed. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are the only one with that many comment entries, asking seems kind of pointless and begging for argument, which I will not oblige you with. It isn't necessary (or desirable) to debate every person who offers an opinion here. Pharmboy (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: "Game director of the critically acclaimed video game Hitman Blood Money" passes my notability bar, is there a written guide to establish this without subjectivity? If the nominator "didn't even learn who he was" until they researched it, it sounds like a case for article improvement. Keep for improvement.--Alf 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I think he meets notability, and the sources are bent towards him. matt91486 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. ···日本穣 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I had originally tagged db-web and nom (who is also the creator of the article) changed it to an AFD but he failed to finish the AFD process. It is about a non-notable website, the information within the article is already covered in the main Jehovah's Witnesses article and no new information is added so it is redundant. It also looks more like advertising for the website than informational at this time as well. Would also include JW.org redirect. Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Pharmboy (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I am the one who nominated it for AfD, and (for the sake of full-disclosure) also created the article. While I am always open to comments from the community, I thought speedy deletion of the article was hasty considering the size of the org and the distribution of the periodical in question, which is published in more languages than any periodical by a mile. I think its safe to say it doesn't read like spam. I think the biggest strike against it is it newness, since it was relaunched on the first. However, it is a new media presentation for the organization, which is why I thought it might merit a separate article, much like specific books for the organization (and others for that matter) have their own articles. Regardless, here it is in AfD.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As to size of organization, please read WP:BIG. I think it would maybe qualify as a redirect just as you did Watchtower.org, but as of now, the website (as a standalone website) doesn't meet notability. *New* websites are the defacto definition of what db-web speedy was designed for. I don't begrudge you for pulling the speedy tag, although that is clearly against policy for an article creator to pull a speedy tag. You should have used the {{HANGON}} tag. You should also have FINISHED the AFD process, which the failure of may look like someone trying to work around the system. I am taking you actions in good faith, but you see that they were really contrary to policy. Regardless, the site fails notability. I wouldn't object it was redirected to Jehovah's Witness, which is the only thing that makes the site have any potential notability anyway. Pharmboy (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for inputs and I don't contest any failure of this AfD, but I did want to at least have my actions represented in the light of what transpired. (1) I didn't put a {{holdon}} tag on it because it was already deleted by the time I realized it was being nominated for speedy. I don't think this was a violation of policy to subsequently bring it here, but if it is, fair enough. (2) I did attempt to complete the AfD, but while I was typing up my reason, my browser crashed. By the time I was back up and running, someone had already finished it. That is why I added my comments below his/hers above.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. It is nowadays presumed that an organization will have a website, so mere existence of same is not notable. Clearly separate notability would need to be demonstrated. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. Most organizations have websites now. The fact that it is a new website as mentioned above is the definition of db-web. -Djsasso (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect, although it might possibly be notable for being one of the very very very very last major organizations to get a working website. Nah, redirect. Keeper | 76 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:It already has a website, several.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 02:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment As the AFD nom, I have no problem with it (and the other redirect) instead being redirected to Jehovah's Witnesses, as the site is legit, just not notable by itself. Pharmboy (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Recently created article about a brand name of the alcoholic drink Absinthe. Endorsed (created?) by Mariln Manson. Other than that, no assertion of notability. One google news article was found. Everything "regular google" was promotional, or homepage related, or wiki/blog/unreliable. The News article is about Absinthe, with a one word mention of Mansinthe. Also tagged with a copyright tag from Corenbot. Keeper | 76 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as
either copyvio or(non-notable) advertisement, or both. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) - Comment – The content of this article is now properly licensed under the GFDL as attribution has been made. — madman bum and angel 19:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination -- I couldn't find anything either. --A. B. 17:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Although the article needs improvement, the comments below, results found through news searching, and additional expansion of the article indicate that the subject fulfills the notability requirements of WP:ORG by having "demonstrable effects" on economy and culture. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 06:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario (RGD Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete no indication that this trade group is notable; there are many trade associations at the local, regional, state/provincial, national, or transnational levels, and they aren't all notable - this group doesn't seem to be the subject of significant coverage by independent third parties, as we expect from WP:ORG and WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Notable licensing body for graphic designers in Ontario. Right now it reads as promotional literature, so that would need to be edited out, but I believe 3rd-party sources can be found. freshacconcispeaktome 22:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Graphic designers don't have to be licensed. It's a hoax. GJ (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'm guessing that's a joke? Are you claiming the article is a hoax? It's not. The organization exists. Graphic designers aren't required to be licensed in Ontario, but to be called a registered graphic designer requires licensing. freshacconcispeaktome 23:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Google News reveals that the association's founder received the Order of Ontario, as reported in one of Canada's two national papers. I added a reference. (Sorry, I haven't yet figured out how to use the cite-news tag, but it's there).Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Second comment The notability guidelines for organizations states: "Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." I believe the "Programs and services" section can be said to illustrate a wide-ranging impact on graphic design in Canada's largest province.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - as per second comment above... I too agree insofar that any form of licensing will also improove education in the field, and therefore satisfying WP:N. Exit2DOS2000 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a licensing body (similar to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario or the Law Society of Upper Canada) rather than a trade association, and was the subject of special legislation in Ontario. If there is a law about you, you're notable. --Eastmain (talk) 05:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- You know what? That makes sense to me and if it isn't in WP:NOTABILITY, it sure ought to be. "If there's a law about you, you're notable." Therefore, Keep.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, professional body with notable members, needs work though Alf 00:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:WEB, I couldn't find any reliable, third party sources that mention or review this website RichardΩ612 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:WEB. No sign of any achievements, bands, records etc. Triwbe (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Call it a non-notable corp, or a non-notable website. Either way, Delete. Pastordavid (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, could be a speedy A7. 30 full-time employees is no indictator of Knowledge (XXG) notability at all, and third-party sources appear not to exist.--h i s r e s e a r c h 03:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. DS (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This was tagged as {{db-nocontext}}, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't fit in that criterion. However, I'm also unsure as to the notability of the term. I am neutral on the subject; this is a procedural nomination. Keilana(recall) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This is a general legal term in active circulation, so I believe it can be subject to an encyclopedia article. Thank you! --Smithbrenon (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, this is a widely-used rationale in judicial decisions. This is a stub, not a dicdef. --Dhartung | Talk 20:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The article in question is on a notable legal term. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The term is apparently legitimate and notable; I've tagged it as a US legal stub accordingly. -FrankTobia (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep What are we doing deleting this? Per above. SeanMD80 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Valid encyclopedic subject.--h i s r e s e a r c h 03:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy close. Deletion is not involved in this. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Distinguishing between penile, clitoral and nipple erections. Moving them to their own respective pages makes the information clearer (please search for "erection (nipple)" and "erection (clitoral)" for examples. Casdious (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. This page contains the edit history of all those pages - deleting it would mean that the original edits made in creating the content that you have just split off could not be attributed and would therebey violate the GFDL. It should at least be an disambiguation page to aid navigation - see Knowledge (XXG):Disambiguation. WjBscribe 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Per Scribe. --David Shankbone 20:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Splitting pages doesn't call for deleting the original, it's still useful to have a single page that gives a little information about all three, and gives main article links to them. What's more, the split is highly questionable, as the information available on penile erections dwarfs the others by several orders of magnitude. When someone goes to a doctor complaining their nipples won't stay hard, let's talk. --AnonEMouse 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. Deletion is not the correct avenue for this. If you want to divide up the page, use Template:split-apart, but establish consensus on the split TheBilly (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete Shirahadasha (talk) 05:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Sensomusic Usine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
This article is entirely based from primary sources and there do not appear to be any non-primary reliable sources about this piece of software. There are relatively few google hits ~1500 and the vast majority of them are download sites, trivial listings, and blogs/forums (in other words, no reliable sources). FYI, the current text of the page is promo material from their own website, which is clearly a COI, even if it isn't a copyright violation. Also possibly of note is the fact that external links to their website have been being placed in similar articles such as Ableton Live and Max (software) (they have since been removed). Wickethewok (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Scott.wheeler (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find any third-party reliable sources for this which would make it notable software.--h i s r e s e a r c h 03:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Usine is a young soft (a year) and has a 2000 users community which increase around 20% each month... How can you decide that it's not a 'notable' soft? I'm a spammer because I've included a link on max/msp page? If you look at the French version you will see that the page contains around 10 links to related softwares... So on the English version of the article I have only reproduce the same kind of link. If I resume the 'related software' section is allowed in French but not in English? Also the article has been rewritten to fit to 'wiki spirit'. (Olivier Sens) talk to Sensomusic 14:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy (talk) 15:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I second that ! i'm a Usine user and i suppose that all software have begun small , right ...?
, and wikipedia can help little software to grow...
and i don't think that 1500 hits in google are a " few " hits !!!
in life , little things can be important too...
thanks to read , have a good day
nay-seven —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.242.214 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I find this incredible.
This software completely changed my way of music making. Is that unnotable? It practically made possible the concept of my group of live improvised electronic music. Is that unnotable? And I know I'm not alone 'cause I can see the buzz and the spark in the Usine forum community. This is no meaningless spam entry.
I just googled for Usine myself and found this quote so that someone had written on harmony-central.com. It almost made me cry - it's so much to the point of what I'm saying here.
Link to quote
Also check out kvraudio.com and similar places for third-party entries.
Right now my faith in Knowledge (XXG) is about to fade. I'm sure there's a tiny space on your server for Usine.
best regards
antwan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.194.97 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I said to the article creator on my talk page, Knowledge (XXG) articles need to be based on reliable and independent sources. This naturally excludes press releases, blog/forum posts, and other such things. What is needed here would be secondary published reviews, such as in a music technology magazine, newspaper, or something of that sort. Wickethewok (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I hope the format of my comment is not inappropriate; I am not confident of customs and protocol of my Knowledge (XXG) correspondence, apologies in advance. Recently I have used it for several performances with my group 3 Pups Music at a noteable music festival, the Sonic Arts Festival at University of Arkansas, USA in December 2007. I have watched Sensomusic's Usine community both from correspondences, website publications and forum posts made on the forum websites at http://www.kvraudio.com and http://www.sensomusic.com for about the past 2-3 years. I am aware through correspondences, website publications and forum posts that the software is used by other musicians in locations in several different countries. I have used Usine as a musician myself for about the last 2 years in its free version, and have been using the full commercial version of the software for about the last 4-6 months. I think it would be a mistake to refuse Usine an entry in Knowledge (XXG).
me again, to Wickethewok :
are you really sure that music technology magazine and newspaper are " independent sources "...?
read some of them ( try "keyboards recording magazine " for example...maybe you see that time to time web forums can be a better info sources
just my 2 cents
nay-seven
my name is Stefanus Vivens,(you'll find me in google, but there is no 1500 hits!) i'm a professionnal musician since 1989. Those later years i worked on Reason(license), Ableton Live(license), MAX/MSP... i decided to grow up with Sensomusic Usine now(license), because it is a very open software, always in development, with free updates, where i'm free to do all i want. And because it is a software done by a musician for musicians, for a very special use, because it is all modular, with some audio to midi translation, analysis, and so easy to use compared to MAX/MSP, Reaktor. Usine can work with MAX and Reaktor; since the begining Usine is fully VST...next step is a VST plugg version,in order to be used with Ableton Live, Cubase, Logic...(etc) so why don't reference it? I think that maybe there is a preconception for this almost free software. about externals links, this is an extract of the Knowledge (XXG) MAX article: >>> ""Native Instruments markets a similar software called Reaktor. Reaktor is generally considered easier to use and learn than Max, albeit less powerful.
Apple has a very similar program called Quartz Composer focused on graphical compositions and there is also a free (for non-commercial use) software developed by meso called VVVV (a multipurpose toolkit) focused on real time video synthesis."" <<< with respect, Stéfanus Vivens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.234.109 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-I'm a sound enginer and I use Usine a lot. Usine is a powerful audio software that help us to do what we can't do with other classic DAW. It's better than Synthedit, easier than Max/Msp, and it is developped by Oliver Senso. His software deserve a wikipedia article, without any doubt. Sorry for my bad english. Moody
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Insufficient assertion of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- No notability? Then it doesn't just need an AfD, it needs a Speedy A7! I fear tagging the article as such may go against the grain here, but what the hey--WP:BOLD. Two One Six Five Five 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason why I didn't simply delete it as a speedy delete is that it's not clear that the lack of notability established in the article was due to the author's simple failure to assert notability, or the actual lack of notability. --Nlu (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would that every admin had such wisdom. Chubbles (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The reason why I didn't simply delete it as a speedy delete is that it's not clear that the lack of notability established in the article was due to the author's simple failure to assert notability, or the actual lack of notability. --Nlu (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep based on WP:MUSIC, criteria #8 or #9 for winning an award for new folk music. The article needs independent sources, however, and should be tagged as such. Keeper | 76 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Some possible sources: here in folk song magazine, here for winning the award, and here for the kerrville awards page for verification. Took me exactly 30 seconds. I'll add them to the article if no one else will. Keeper | 76 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep—winner of 2007 Kerrville New Folk Competition. Spacepotato (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable from sources provided. Chubbles (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- UPDATED ARTICLE. Please look at the article as it stands now (with 3 references for you to verify) before making a decision below this sentence. Keeper | 76 16:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was This is Articles for deletion, not Knowledge (XXG):Requested moves. I've fixed the mess. Uncle G (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose that this page be deleted because he is more commonly known as Yahir, not as Yahir Othon. Despite Othon being his surname, none of his albums have ever credited him as "Yahir Othon", only as just "Yahir". I have already copied this page to just the Yahir page and now propose that the Yahir Othon page be deleted. Joeschmoe2003 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- redirect I don't see why it has to be fully deleted. Just blank the page and re-direct it to Yahir. --Pmedema (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Blank and redirect. Deletion sounds a bit harsh. Two One Six Five Five 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- In an effort of Boldness, I went ahead and did the redirect. (the talk page as well) This does not belong in AfD. Please undo my recent edits if you feel this was unjustified. Suggesting speedy close. happy editing, Keeper | 76 20:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy A1 by WikiLeon. Tevildo (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hollis Chatelain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Blatant advertising... Alloranleon (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - This should have been speedy deleted under both db-content and db-context. --Pmedema (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - no content and not noteworthy. Triwbe (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete - no encyclopedic text, advertising. Macy's123 review me 20:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. I added the speedy tag to the article for immediate attention from admins. Keeper | 76 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. As it presently stands, the article contains no encyclopedic content whatever. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. None of the Keep opinions provided relevant reliable sources in order to verify the notability of the article subject. ···日本穣 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- WEB (Top Secret) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Non-notable in-game organisation. No assertion of real-world notability, and no links to independent coverage.
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
Percy Snoodle (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. RuneWiki 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There are comics, trade paperbacks and novels in addition to the many resources published in the Top Secret/S.I. line that contain both ORION Foundation and WEB organizations and characters. Why target these for deletion when so many other examples similar are allowed (look at the Mystara article, it contains half a dozen articles about countries from that campaign setting. What's the difference with these articles)? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with the previous user, the only reason available for deletion is that the content is not suitable for an encyclopedia but that same reason can be aimed at any number of roleplaying entries on Knowledge (XXG). Should these articles be deleted then I would expect all other roleplaying entries to have the same level of administrative input applied to them (i.e., deletion).
dpmcalister (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I too agree with the above users. Further, things like tv episodes, fantasy/science fiction concepts, etc. also fit the same criteria. Wiki is supposed to be about information that different people want to see. CMartin007 (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC) — CMartin007 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep. RPGs hold just as much importance as any other form of entertainment. When are novel related pages going to be pulled? TSSI spawned novels. --Hodagacz (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) — Hodagacz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment none of the above keep votes, including those from the two editors who have contributed elsewhere, address the concerns I put forward. Although the ORION foundation and WEB organisations appear in multiple places in the TSSI line, there is no non-trivial independent coverage; and as such the topics do not meet the notability guidelines. Percy Snoodle (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My point is that if the precedent is set by deleting these articles, then all the role playing articles on Knowledge (XXG) will also need to be reviewed, with the vast majority being deleted due to an inability to obtain non-trivial independent coverage for games that are no longer published — and haven't been for over 15 years. dpmcalister (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC).
- Comment Whether or not other articles exist that don't meet the criteria doesn't affect whether these two do. Do you have any sources to show that there is multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of these topics? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment There are a mailing lists and websites dedicated to Top Secret/S.I. and, by default, ORION and WEB. I would consider them to be non-trivial (one has been in existence for nearly 10 years) and independent. dpmcalister (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
- Comment Whether or not other articles exist that don't meet the criteria doesn't affect whether these two do. Do you have any sources to show that there is multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of these topics? Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment My point is that if the precedent is set by deleting these articles, then all the role playing articles on Knowledge (XXG) will also need to be reviewed, with the vast majority being deleted due to an inability to obtain non-trivial independent coverage for games that are no longer published — and haven't been for over 15 years. dpmcalister (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC).
- Comment - I feel you should retract the nomination for deletion. According to the guidelines from the very article you sited, the proper procedure are found here - Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. Being a large contributor to the articles I would've thought you'd have contacted me about these issues, first. I don't believe you asked me about anything related to the articles. Perhaps you meant to put the {{notability}} instead of the deletion tag, but it seems from your discussion here you intended to skip right to the deletion nomination. Lastly, {{expert-subject}} would've sufficed and probably would have been more appropriate. May I ask why the zeal to delete the articles?
- Comment Since I was content that sources could not be found to establish the article's notability, it was appropriate under those guidelines to proceed to AFD. If you can prove me wrong by finding sources to establish that there is multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of either topic, I'll withdraw the nomination. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Again, the {{expert-subject}} needs to proceed the deletion nomination. Why are you so zealous to delete these articles? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment' No, it doesn't. {{expert-subject}} is for artickes " in need of attention from an expert on the subject." This article is in need of sources to establish notability, and none exist. Hence it is appropriate to proceed to AFD. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Again, the {{expert-subject}} needs to proceed the deletion nomination. Why are you so zealous to delete these articles? Jeffrywith1e (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Since I was content that sources could not be found to establish the article's notability, it was appropriate under those guidelines to proceed to AFD. If you can prove me wrong by finding sources to establish that there is multiple, non-trivial independent coverage of either topic, I'll withdraw the nomination. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Percy Snoodle (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I added one reference, and I strongly suspect there are others, I will leave it to those who know the area. This really should have been tagged for notability first to provide a chance for people to fix. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment may I ask which one? The only independent reference I see in either article is the trivial directory-listing at nationmaster for ORION; so there are still no reliable sources to show notability for either article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Nom should be withdrawn as it didn't follow guidelines for this type of thing . The idea here is to have verifiable, notable, topics. This one may or may not be. But in good faith should work with others to find out, or at least give them time. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete All as these articles have no primary references to verify their sources, no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside of Top Secret (role-playing game). These articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT, and their heavy in universe perspective means it fails WP:WAF, and has little in the way of real-world content, context or analysis. The nomination is very clearly justified; there are no sober agruments for keeping this fancruft. This topic appears to be little more than fodder for a stock conspiracy theory.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
DeleteRedirect both to Top Secret (role-playing game) (although I'm not sure about the reasoning for the "fodder for a stock conspiracy theory" argument above). Merge (a small amount of relevant material, possibly) to Top Secret (role-playing game), but I think there isn't much to add there that will add much to the article. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge and redirect to List of characters from Family Guy. ···日本穣 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This article is based on a fictional character, written in-universe style, with no real world significance or notability, it is also unreferenced and the character has only appeared in a few episodes. Other articles on characters of this genre on Family Guy have been deleted and merged into one article, so I am suggesting that the same thing should happen to this one. Blueanode (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- see also: Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Mickey McFinnigan which is an AFD revolving around other family guy characters.
- Delete Although I have seen at least 2 of those episodes that he is in, he is such a minor character that he really doesn't need his own article. If anything, merge all of the minor characters to one article. Tavix (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to a list of Family Guy characters. Which is what should happen with probably 90% or more of the articles on fictional characters on Knowledge (XXG). Otto4711 (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge (which automatically includes a redirect) to List of characters from Family Guy per the guidelines of WP:FICT. I'm not seeing any easy indication that he's independently notable, though if they appear before the end of the AfD, then obviously this should be kept. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per above. Keeper | 76 22:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge to the list. I doubt this character merits a stand-alone article as he has no seperate notability from the Family Guy, which is obviously very notable. He's one of the more minor characters, unlike, say, Glenn Quagmire who appears in almost every episode.--h i s r e s e a r c h 03:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Whether he is one or the major or minor characters seems like a judgment call, and would be an editing decision. No need to discuss it here. DGG (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep this well-presented article on a memorable recurring character from a notable show. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note- please ignore this editor, the character doesn't even appear anymore and the editor in question appears to be following around voting keep on every AFD I start just because they do not agree with my deletionism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueanode (talk • contribs) 17:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am taking this very personally, this editor is making a game out of the AFD process. Blueanode (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- You shouldn't, because nothing here (in Knowledge (XXG)) is personal. Don't get stressed about one "Vote". We are building an encyclopedia. If the "pumpkin" votes keep for everything, so be it. It's not personal, and xe is entitled to say whatever xe wants. Most admins will take xer vote in stride. Keeper | 76 18:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as a lot of plot with no reliable, secondary sources evidencing notability. — pd_THOR | 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect as above. It is clear that with no real world significance asserted or adduced, this does not merit an individual article. Keep votes are an assemblage of ATAs that do not provide any foundation whatsoever for retention of this kind of material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eusebeus (talk • contribs) 20:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge same as above. Toolazy21 (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete — Caknuck (talk) 20:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- RealTaken Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Website launched within last several months; no claim of meeting WP:Notability in article. 4 non-wiki ghits, none of which show a whiff of notability; no sources in article to show notability. Possible WP:COI issues. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:N Site is new and has no references.--Pmedema (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. See WP:WEB. --John Nagle (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not notable, at best a vanity page, at worst spam Gaffertape (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, pure ad. --Gimlei 13:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Quality hosting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Contested prod original research how to guide. Ridernyc (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Pure OR. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. OR RJC 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Unreferenced and not cited in anyway. Obvious OR. --Pmedema (talk) 20:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong delete. Fails WP:NOR miserably. Unsourcable personal opinion. --h i s r e s e a r c h 03:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete unsourced article about a nn book by nn author, fails WP:BOOK Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No assertion of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Writer's Showcase Press is a vanity publisher equivalent to iUniverse and Lulu.com. Amazon sales rank is 5,767,789, which means essentially no sales, and the listing has no reviews. A quick Google search doesn't pull up any notice of this book, let alone reviews from reliable sources. Essentially self-published + no sale + no notice = no notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Extensive news and Google searches turned up exactly one review of the book and it had been written by the author! Non-notable book from a vanity press. - Dravecky (talk) 02:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per Quasirandom. 110 ghits is a bad sign also. If this book does well, revisit of course. Hobit (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. JERRY contribs 05:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NN software. Only promotional and release announcements were findable in reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, notability not asserted. --Yamla (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad the wikipedia administrators are vigilant but the reason for deletion seem insufficient. Have a look at similar projects: Anjuta, Code::Blocks, MinGW_Developer_Studio, GLUI, Agar_(software). Also Sourceforge and Freshmeat, are very notable, and are as apparent enough reference. Phirox (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: any user can propose an article for delete (preferably based on Knowledge (XXG) rules). Not every AfD is necessarily evil conspiracy of administrators trying to suppress the progress and enlightement of the masses. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I did some work with the IDE, it is interesting and breath-taking piece of work (and often frustrating as the authors decided make it so much different from all other IDEs) but the novel approach doesn't really establish encyclopedical notability of the subject. It is very hard for Knowledge (XXG) to reliably cover software, except for the very few widely used tools. Many software articles end up unmaintained, obsolete and full of marketing. History of Ultimate++ page on WP doesn't make me optimist.
- Quite a many of the other IDE's mentioned above should be, IMHO, deleted as well. For a truly massive list of IDE articles see Comparison of integrated development environments. I suspect most of these articles were created just because other stuff was already here and we don't want to feel as total loosers who don't even have a text on WP. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete under criterion A7 performed by User:Majorly (talk). —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely no notability at all, forum users are not notable on wikipedia. Blueanode (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I speedied it. Meets no criteria for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG); this is just a vanity article that fails WP:BIO. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY contribs 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:BIO now more inclusive in that its criteria applies fairly to Japanese porn. 1. Has she won any Japanese awards? They exist don't they?! 2. What unique or iconic contributions has she made to japanese porn? 3. Has she been featured multiple times in mainstream Japanese media? (and no being sold by Amazon or any other seller does not make her notable. Nor is amazon a verifiable source) Article flunks the criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails the criteria. Got a free ride on the old criteria, fails the new ones TheBilly (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The Japanese and American pornography industries are vastly different and to ignore those differences by applying the standards of one country onto the other is to create cultural bias at Knowledge (XXG), which is what we see going on right at this AfD. The Japanese pornography market dwarfs the U.S. market. In 1994 it was reported that "approximately 14,000 'adult' videos were being made yearly in Japan compared with some 2500 in the U.S.". And, in 1992, "The market for pornographic videos is worth Y400 billion annually, accounting for around 30 percent of ’s video rentals." Reflecting the vitality of the Japanese AV industry, there are articles on almost 1,400 AV actresses on Japanese Knowledge (XXG). And how is the huge Japanese adult entertainment industry represented in comparison the much smaller U.S. industry here on English Knowledge (XXG)? We're going on to 800 articles on U.S. porn stars (not even counting the sub-categories) and yet only 71 of English-Wiki's over 2 million articles are on at Category:Japanese porn stars. Even at the Chinese Knowledge (XXG), with less than 160,000 total articles there are 78 articles on Japanese AV actresses.
- "How many awards has she won?" Well, how many adult entertainment awards are there in Japan? Does anyone know of even one? No? I've been editing in the area of Japanese erotic cinema/pornography for two years now, and have yet to find a single firm source on any such awards in Japan. Yet we just assume they hand out awards like candy on Halloween, just because the U.S. adult entertainment industry apparently does? To really determine if Hikari Hino is a notable Japanese AV actress-- rather than set up a kangaroo court to delete the article-- we have to compare Hikari Hino to the average in her country and industry-- not by rules put in place to deal with a foreign country and industry.
- According to journalist and Japanese media authority, Kjell Fornander, the career of an average Japanese AV actress spans about one year, during which the actress appears in five to ten videos total. How does Hikari Hino compare to the average Japanese AV actress? Still going strong two and a half years after her debut, she is currently featured in 56 DVDs listed at mainstream Amazon.com. (Specialty adult services would no doubt list more.) For further insight, how does Hikari Hino compare to a Japanese pornographic superstar like Hitomi Kobayashi? "...long hailed as Japan's Queen of Adult Video... It's been 16 years since her debut film and she has made 39 movies for the direct to video market..." (bold italics mine).
- Hikari Hino is clearly notable by Japanese Adult Video standards. To claim a prolific, long-lived, high-profile AV star like Hikari Hino is not notable because she hasn't appeared in U.S. Playboy, or because she hasn't won an award in a country that is apparently nowhere near as award-happy as the U.S. is to openly invite cultural provincialism into the English Knowledge (XXG). To further chip away at Knowledge (XXG)'s already meagre coverage of Japanese erotic cinema is to further the cultural bias already present. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Notability is not a numbers game or comparison. I believe the wp:bio guidelines are fair. Aren't there popular japanese adult magazines like (a Japanese Playboy) that she's the main centerfold of? Someone else mentioned that JAV stars typically appear on mainstream Japanese television. Can't you cite the times that Hikari Hino has appeared on a mainstream television? Vinh1313 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment is the overlap of AV performers and Playboy centerfolds in the US so strong that you would expect a similar correlation to occur in Japan? Either way, it still looks like you're trying to pigeonhole one culture into another. Neier (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's not about culture or an overlap comparison. Playboy centerfolds are notable because Playboy is a mainstream magazine with a circulation of 3 million. Is there an equivalent in Japan? You tell me. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Playboy seems to be a magazine for middle-aged gents who like to be told how to spend their money, interspersed with the occasional, heavily "airbrushed" (photoshoplifted) photos both of tits not quite spilling out of bikinis and of straightforward T&A. I can think of Shūkan Gendai as a putative equivalent. It's different in certain ways, however; and an important one is that it seems to eschew porn stars for the most part. A widely stocked example of a mag that does include porn stars is Bejean, but this has a much higher percentage of T&A than Playboy does: it's a well-photographed stroke magazine for the horny young rather than a shopping magazine for the aged. However, I'm no expert. I can assure any heterosexual men here who are iconolagnically inclined that googlesearches will bring numerous uplifting pleasures. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Still washing Kent Derricott out of your hair? Surely you're not implying you don't enjoy familing, are you? Ah, the pleasures of Konglish & Japlish... ;) Dekkappai (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Playboy seems to be a magazine for middle-aged gents who like to be told how to spend their money, interspersed with the occasional, heavily "airbrushed" (photoshoplifted) photos both of tits not quite spilling out of bikinis and of straightforward T&A. I can think of Shūkan Gendai as a putative equivalent. It's different in certain ways, however; and an important one is that it seems to eschew porn stars for the most part. A widely stocked example of a mag that does include porn stars is Bejean, but this has a much higher percentage of T&A than Playboy does: it's a well-photographed stroke magazine for the horny young rather than a shopping magazine for the aged. However, I'm no expert. I can assure any heterosexual men here who are iconolagnically inclined that googlesearches will bring numerous uplifting pleasures. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It's not about culture or an overlap comparison. Playboy centerfolds are notable because Playboy is a mainstream magazine with a circulation of 3 million. Is there an equivalent in Japan? You tell me. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment is the overlap of AV performers and Playboy centerfolds in the US so strong that you would expect a similar correlation to occur in Japan? Either way, it still looks like you're trying to pigeonhole one culture into another. Neier (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Notability is not a numbers game or comparison. I believe the wp:bio guidelines are fair. Aren't there popular japanese adult magazines like (a Japanese Playboy) that she's the main centerfold of? Someone else mentioned that JAV stars typically appear on mainstream Japanese television. Can't you cite the times that Hikari Hino has appeared on a mainstream television? Vinh1313 (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep per Dekkappai's well-reasoned notable in her field exposition. Neier (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Fails the criteria. Dekkappai should campaign to change the criteria if he wants the article to stay. Epbr123 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai did not have WP:PORNBIO engraved on them. As Epbr123 points out in his comment, these rules are constantly changing. But no matter what their current state, they are put in place to help Knowledge (XXG), not to harm it. An unbendingly literalistic interpretation of these rules is counter to the clearly stated purpose of the rules themselves, the very first words of the very first paragraph of which read, "This page is considered a notability guideline on Knowledge (XXG). It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."
- Judging from the sources in my statement above, there is extreme imbalance here in representation between the U.S. porn field and the larger Japanese porn field. Obviously fewer articles were created here on the Japanese subjects because there are much fewer editors specifically interested in the Japanese industry. It's natural that the English Knowledge (XXG) would lean towards subjects in the English-language world. This kind of unintentional bias is to be expected, and probably unavoidable though we should consciously work against it rather than intentionally further it. I have helped delete articles on Japanese erotic cinema which were not notable in the field, and I will continue to do so. However, using rules which were obviously put in place to deal with the U.S. industry to further that imbalance by deleting articles on subjects which are notable in their field creates cultural bias and is therefore using the rules against their intended purpose, and harmful to Knowledge (XXG). Dekkappai (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Dekkappai's argument of "notable in her field". Tabercil (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- So you believe number of film appearances should be re-added to the WP:BIO criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I can't verify this, but if anyone can make out Chinese (I can't), THIS article seems to say that Hikari Hino (妃乃ひかり) was nominated for an award at a Moodyz AV award ceremony (【AV大賞】Moodyz大感謝祭). Dekkappai (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If this is a Japanese performer and a Japanese award, why isn't there a Japanese article to cover this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinh1313 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Parts of the article are obviously cribbed from a Japanese source-- e.g. the title (in the midst of the article) and the names use kana, rather than being transcribed into Chinese characters. This appears to be a Chinese-language site which follows the Japanese AV industry. Why does this original Japanese source appear not to be online now? I can't answer that any more than I can answer why an award reported in Chinese would make the award any less notable than had it been reported in Japanese.... Dekkappai (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I asked that question simply because I'm skeptical of the reliability of the source/blog.Vinh1313 (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Parts of the article are obviously cribbed from a Japanese source-- e.g. the title (in the midst of the article) and the names use kana, rather than being transcribed into Chinese characters. This appears to be a Chinese-language site which follows the Japanese AV industry. Why does this original Japanese source appear not to be online now? I can't answer that any more than I can answer why an award reported in Chinese would make the award any less notable than had it been reported in Japanese.... Dekkappai (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, nn, etc. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Dekkappai makes a good case for the subject's notability. The guidelines for WP:PORNBIO clearly exhibit systemic bias, in cases like this guidelines should be treated as just that, a guide and not a fixed position. RMHED (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- But should every Japanese porn star who's made 39 movies be allowed an article? Decisions like this should be decided on the guideline talk pages, where there would be greater input. Until census has been gained to include this in the notability criteria, the article should be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The guidelines themselves state they are to be treated "with common sense and the occasional exception." Removing articles in an area which is under-represented at Knowledge (XXG) through strict interpretation of changeable and U.S.-centric rules results in the furthering of that under-representation, and furthering of cultural bias. Or is that another Chewbacca-defense? I've added some more info to the article, including the fact that she's been in Weekly Playboy at least twice, and comparing her career to that of the average AV performer. Dekkappai (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- But should every Japanese porn star who's made 39 movies be allowed an article? Decisions like this should be decided on the guideline talk pages, where there would be greater input. Until census has been gained to include this in the notability criteria, the article should be deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep - article cites 9 independent sources, which is more than Hood Mockingbird, yet the latter article appeared on the Main Page today as a DYK item. Johntex\ 23:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Editing mostly Chinese-related articles and in many cases having relied on sources that are in the Chinese language, I'm not insensitive to cultural bias on WP, and have helped save and translate articles in the past that would have appeared not notable if we relied only on English-language sources. Having said that, I'm entirely unconvinced that WP:BIO, specifically the criteria for porn stars, is culturally biased. It's based on three basic criteria: 1) awards won or nominated, 2) notable contribution like starting a trend, 3) and appearances in mainstream media. Unless there's no industry awards in the Japanese porn industry, I don't see how these criteria are culturally biased. Another point that I would like to make is that a lot of articles are made on porn stars that are simply not notable, and a quick look at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion shows that the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted in the past, at least judging by their names, are American porn stars. Which only goes to show that WP:BIO has been just as strict, if not stricter, regarding American porn stars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, given the above, apparently there aren't any industry awards in the Japanese AV industry, so yes, that would be a cultural bias. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then it's truly an amazing feat that Yua Aida was able to win one of those non-existent awards in 2006. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field, Kyoko Aizome for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the sources I've cited above show that they actually have far more... But that aside, the point is that the awards appear to be no where near as common as they are for the U.S. industry. I've contacted two native Japanese speakers on the issue. Both have made efforts to help, neither was able to find anything. Dekkappai (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Knowledge (XXG), understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you for the compliment, Hong, but I think your compliment points out the bias. The efforts in film-related articles you applaud, I assume, are in the area of Korean cinema. I am in the process of starting articles on highly significant Korean films made in the decades before the current boom in popularity. How do I know they are significant? Because I lived in the country, and am naturally curious and studious about such topics. I asked around. I talked with friends and acquaintances about Korean cinema. I watched Korean TV and looked through books on the local cinema. And now that I'm starting these articles, I find that sourcing on Korean films before the 1990s-- here, in the U.S., in English-- is extremely scarce. But are we standing around looking off in the horizon saying, "Nope, no sourcing for Korean film before 2001... Must not have been a single notable film made in Korea before Oldboy... Delete 'em all!" No, we aren't. But should AfDs on these articles start up, you can expect to see very similar arguments coming from me. And I'm sure you've taken a similar argument with China-related AfDs-- in fact I'm sure I've seen you almost parrot my exact words at some. (No, don't ask me to dig through old times... Deny it if you want.) It seems that it is the subject on which we differ, not the truth behind the argument. Dekkappai (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Knowledge (XXG), understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, given the above, apparently there aren't any industry awards in the Japanese AV industry, so yes, that would be a cultural bias. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Apparently non-notable future movie, WP:CRYSTAL. First AFD nomination was handled badly by the nominator, and it'd be too difficult to gauge consensus, so making a clean start. Running an extra day won't hurt anything, there is no deadline, and this way the outcome will be more clear. —Random832 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- delete - after looking at it, even setting aside the problems with the first debate, this doesn't seem to be a notable film; IMDB inclusion alone is not generally considered evidence of notability. Not spam anymore, but still not notable. —Random832 17:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete again, due to WP:COI, WP:CRYSTAL and unverifiability. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- weak delete again can't find any verification via wp:rs, imdb and wikipedia seem to be the only significant links. Pharmboy (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - fails the notability requirements for films:
- - has not been released and its production was neither notable nor received any coverage;
- - is not the subject of any full-length reviews or articles;
- - has not received any awards, is not included in any curricula and has not been selected for inclusion in a national archive;
- - no sources to indicate a unique contribution to cinema or its genre;
- - is not one of the most important roles performed by any notable people (in fact, does not feature any notable people at all); and
- - has not been successfully distributed in any country or region where film distribution is otherwise unlikely.
- The only apaprent sources are imdb and similar mass-listing sites, which are specifically excluded from the definition of reliable sources for movies. Euryalus (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete NN crystal ball gazing Mayalld (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I first speedied this because notability was asserted but not indicated (no reference). Another editor turned down the speedy and added one reference, so I'm bringing this here.
Now, the main problem with this article is that nearly every claim it makes is uncited, and there are no references except for one. I did a Google search for "Tamer Hosny" and nothing came up in the first ten pages. Of course, given the amount of youtube clips and fan groups, I'm guessing there are plenty of Egyptian-language sources; there just aren't any english ones. So in this state it fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per everything nom has said... have to agree. --Pmedema (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. I think we can take the combination of the Arab News description of him as a "celebrated Arab pop singer" and the number of google hits above and here as pretty strong evidence of notability. Please also note the language of Egypt is Arabic, not Egyptian. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep certainly seems notable in a large part of 'Arab World'. Gets very few english language google news hits, but if you put in his arabic name you get a fair few. We must try to avoid systemic bias whenever possible. RMHED (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not biased; I'm just saying, unless we have an Arabic editor, how do we prove that those Arabic sources are notable? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Referring to WP:BIAS is in no way an accusation that you are personally biased. Let's make an effort to get some Arabic-reading editors involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I was asked to take a look at the sources, and I do warn that I'm not all that great at Arabic. From what I can conjecture, he seems to be notable, but you'll need a better Arabic speaker to be sure. I can tell you that about half of what's in his English Knowledge (XXG) entry is absent from his Arabic one, which means that it's unsourced material. I will leave a rough translation of the Arabic Knowledge (XXG) entry on the talk page for this AfD. Cheers, CP 19:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Again Reading his Knowledge (XXG) article (the translation of the main part is now on the talk page for this AfD) I do believe him to be notable. Cheers, CP 19:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that CP. RMHED (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Referring to WP:BIAS is in no way an accusation that you are personally biased. Let's make an effort to get some Arabic-reading editors involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Tamer Hosny is very notable and has several significant reliable sources.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Very strong keep He is only like one of the top three pop artists and most famous in Egypt. I'm shocked anyone would consider this for deletion. Egyegy (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete and prevent re-creation. Kafziel 19:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This article has been deleted via prod (once) and speedy (twice) since June 2006. PtiMemo is non-notable freeware software that has received no significant coverage. There's only 87 unique Google hits for PtiMemo, and they're essentially all sketchy download sites... — Scientizzle 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and salt per nom. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete and salt for repeated spamming. The logs show User:Robertducon created it in at least one of the previous instances, too TheBilly (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No concensus (default keep). JERRY contribs 04:46, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability flunks current WP:BIO. What are her awards? Have her contributions been unique to Japanese porn besides being a girl with really big breasts? Is she featured in mainstream Japanese media? Vinh1313 (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Neutral. There were some convincing arguments for this to be kept in the last AfD, and we should observe that being notable in Japan is somewhat different from being notable in the US or Europe. It really needs citations to reliable sources though. There may be such citations in Japanese, but maybe not - I'm certainly not qualified to judge that!--h i s r e s e a r c h 03:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Having rather reluctantly done something to preserve the Kent Derricott article and then getting the impression that I might been more effective than I'd feared, I was eager to wash the odor of wholesomeness out of my hair and thus moved along the list of Japan-related AfDs to an article on this person, who seems more attractive and is certainly more cushioned. My careful researches so far, of course carried out purely for encyclopedic and altruistic ends, lead me to suggest that she's often romanized as "Syoko Goto"; this might bring the occasional substantive ghit in addition to all the dross. No comment (yet) on her articleworthiness, a matter on which I don't think I'm (yet) qualified to judge. But a couple of notes: (i) She has an article in bat-smg:WP (bat-smg:Shoko_Goto); what language is this? (Baltic, perhaps, but what?) (ii) Particularly in view of en:WP's general discouragement of peacock terms, must external links really be noted as "(contains adult material)"? How about instead "(contains photographs of uncovered tits)"? -- Hoary (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Here I've given my statements about the cultural bias already present in the imbalance between U.S. and Japanese subjects, and my feeling that using biased rules to further that imbalance is a disservice to Knowledge (XXG). To those statements, I add that Ms. Goto is a very well-known and popular actress within the genre. I've added evidence of that to the article, and will do more later when I can. Dekkappai (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - per WP:BIO as an entertainer who Has been featured multiple times in mainstream media. This is most obviously apparent when you look at the availability of Goto's works at Amazon.co.jp, where she currently has 26 DVDs listed, and it looks like roughly half even feature her name in the title. Those same types of videos may not be classified as mainstream in the US, but, while this is the English language wikipedia, it is not necessarily the US-culture-and-morals-centric wikipedia. What may be mainstream in one country is not necessarily the same in another. Amazon, with a global reputation to uphold, would seem to be a good barometer of what is accepted/popular in each country. Neier (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not only is relying on Amazon (or any vendor) improper due to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, making any conclusions about the notability of the product that they sell based on Amazon's sale practices is blatant synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position that goes against WP:OR. Vinh1313 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Except, I am not using Amazon to establish notability of the article. Her 26 mainstream DVDs establish notability; and the fact that DVDs of her genre are so widely available in Japan (including Amazon, and any number of other vendors) points out that they are, in fact, mainstream; and not relegated to the back-alley shops like in the US. Trying to claim that she needs to have won awards, or be unique within the Japanese porn or AV industries, is ignoring the fact that she has been featured in many mainstream medias. Neier (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Not only is relying on Amazon (or any vendor) improper due to WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, making any conclusions about the notability of the product that they sell based on Amazon's sale practices is blatant synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position that goes against WP:OR. Vinh1313 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. -RiverHockey (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - Editing mostly Chinese-related articles and in many cases having relied on sources that are in the Chinese language, I'm not insensitive to cultural bias on WP, and have helped save and translate articles in the past that would have appeared not notable if we relied only on English-language sources. Having said that, I'm entirely unconvinced that WP:BIO, specifically the criteria for porn stars, is culturally biased. It's based on three basic criteria: 1) awards won or nominated, 2) notable contribution like starting a trend, 3) and appearances in mainstream media. Unless there's no industry awards in the Japanese porn industry, I don't see how these criteria are culturally biased. Another point that I would like to make is that a lot of articles are made on porn stars that are simply not notable, and a quick look at Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject_Pornography/Deletion shows that the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted in the past, at least judging by their names, are American porn stars. Which only goes to show that WP:BIO has been just as strict, if not stricter, regarding American porn stars. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field, Kyoko Aizome for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the scholarly sources I've cited at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino (2nd nomination) show that they actually have far more. Dekkappai (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Knowledge (XXG), understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thank you for the compliment, Hong, but I think your compliment points out the bias. The efforts in film-related articles you applaud, I assume, are in the area of Korean cinema. I am in the process of starting articles on highly significant Korean films made in the decades before the current boom in popularity. How do I know they are significant? Because I lived in the country, and am naturally curious and studious about such topics. I asked around. I talked with friends and acquaintances about Korean cinema. I watched Korean TV and looked through books on the local cinema. And now that I'm starting these articles, I find that sourcing on Korean films before the 1990s-- here, in the U.S., in English-- is extremely scarce. But are we standing around looking off in the horizon saying, "Nope, no sourcing for Korean film before 2001... Must not have been a single notable film made in Korea before Oldboy... Delete 'em all!" No, we aren't. But should AfDs on these articles start up, you can expect to see very similar arguments coming from me. And I'm sure you've taken a similar argument with China-related AfDs-- in fact I'm sure I've seen you almost parrot my exact words at some. (No, don't ask me to dig through old times... Deny it if you want.) It seems that it is the subject on which we differ, not the truth behind the argument. Dekkappai (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Dekkappai, we've been through these arguments before. To summarise - I do not believe the current criteria on WP:BIO is culturally biased against Japanese porn stars, or porn stars of any country for that matter. And I am also against using some arbitrary number of videos available on Japanese Amazon to indicate notability of Japanese porn stars. Again, awards aside, what has this particular actress done that's made her notable? According to the article, she has not made any notable appearances in mainstream media, nothing that's verifiable anyway, and she hasn't made any special contribution to the industry like starting a new trend - unless her "panty auctions" were actually something new in Japan. Anyway, my opinion on this article stands. Dekkappai, I applaud and appreciate your efforts in film-related articles, but I'm afraid I differ philosophically when it comes to the notability of porn stars. I'm going to bow out of this discussion, but it would be nice if you can provide a link or two on my Talk page to substantiate your accusation of what I tried to do to the main Japan article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The overwhelming number of articles created here are on American subjects, so of course they get deleted more often. The overwhelming number of articles present in the Porn category are on the much smaller, compared to Japan, American industry which has a much lower visibility, within its culture, than the Japanese porn industry does. Just the imbalance in itself is not evidence of cultural bias, only that fewer editors of the English Knowledge (XXG), understandably, have an interest in creating articles on the Japanese porn industry. However using rules set up to deal with the Anglophone industry to actively delete articles on subjects notable within the Japanese industry actively creates cultural bias. Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- What...? I don't remember ever trying to "edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China". But maybe I just forgot. I do admit I was a lot more prone to edit warring in my earlier days editing WP. Care to give me a link or two to point out when I tried to do this to substantiate this gross accusation? And no, I certainly do not always vote "keep" at Chinese AfDs. I've actually even marked some for speedy before. Concerning AfDs and speedy deletes of other Japanese porn stars, I've only tagged them when I feel they truly are not notable. But back to this particular AfD - like I said, the overwhelming majority of porn star articles that have been deleted are American porn stars, so I don't believe WP:BIO is any stricter when being applied to Japanese porn stars. Even disregarding industry awards, what has this particular person done that's made her notable, besides an arbitrarily assigned number of videos that are for sale on Japanese Amazon? Amazon is a commercial e-commerce site anyway, and hardly a reliable source. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Just a bit more... I tend not to hold grudges, try to forgive and forget & all that. In fact I've made overtures of civility and reconciliation to both Hong and another editor with whom I've had contentious dealings. Consequently, now that I've thought over our past, I realize that I under-stated Hong's bias in my comment above. The editor has a history of virulently anti-Japanese edit-warring... at one point trying to edit-war the main page for the country of Japan into a list every war crime committed against China. So his pose as coming in here as a fellow editor of Asian subjects (odd that at Chinese AfDs he can always be counted on for a "Keep" vote) just to see that the Japanese articles get a fair deal is, at best, ludicrous. Dekkappai (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Note-- Hong's pretense to cultural sensitivity in this issue rings a little hollow. Over the years he has repeatedly attacked the entire category and put "Speedies" on some of the most highly-noted, pioneering actresses in the field, Kyoko Aizome for one. He has claimed that none of these actresses have any notability comparable to their U.S. counterparts, when the scholarly sources I've cited at Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Hikari Hino (2nd nomination) show that they actually have far more. Dekkappai (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- 3 January 2008 Diyarbakir Bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete per WP:NOT#OR, point 5. Knowledge (XXG) is not for journalism. If this event turns out to be notable (doubtful) it should be reported on later, not as breaking news TheBilly (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep WP:NOT#OR doesn't forbid current events, it merely forbids being a primary source. As this article has references to WP:RS to back it up, it doesn't seem to be problematic here. Mayalld (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well I'm more concerned about notability. Incidents of bombings are ongoing around the world. Callous as it may seem, people bomb eachother all the time. Notability is not temporary; This particular incident has not had time to earn notability. TheBilly (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I'm inclined to keep the article, at least for the time being. As noted, it's way too soon to judge whether the event will be notable, but the existance of media coverage of the event is a good indication that there is some reason to believe that notability exists. If nothing further occurs, or there is no notable reaction to the event, then we can delete. I'd give it two or three weeks, perhaps? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Well the latest news (The Turkish News) say the numbers of dead and injured people are rising, and with the recent bombing of Northern Iraqi positions of PKK by the Turkish forces, i say it's worth to wait for the time being. --Overld (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, if this had happened in the US it would already be a featured article that no one would dream of deleting. Counter system bias. Recury (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Recury is quite right. Nick mallory (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep attack is already condemned on an international scale and has made its way to the international media. -- Cat 22:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent that terrorist incidents are default notable.-h i s r e s e a r c h 03:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- . I'd be interested in reading about that precedent if it's recent, say from sometime in 2007 (If from 2005 or so, then it wouldn't mean more than "porn stars can be kept if they have more than 100 films") TheBilly (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per the above. —Nightstallion 09:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I've corrected the article's title. —Nightstallion 09:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Recury. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Recury. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No concensus (default keep). for detailed rationale see talk page. JERRY contribs 21:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Bluetooth advertising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete article just seems to be promoting an entirely new way for spammers to attack. Article is also an apparent WP:COATRACK to promote the adpod product. Mayalld (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Just a bunch of advertising. Tavix (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. There's nothing there, not even an assertion of notability. Bearian (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep per improvements including at least two good sources. Bearian, a/k/a Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - bluetooth advertising is notable (and in my personal opinion, vile and evil). The current article is exactly as stated by the nom, a thinly disguised vehicle to tout the adpod. I've rewritten it as a referenced stub. -- Whpq (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete even after rewrite. The current text announces existence of yet another technology to push more ads (WAP advertising anyone?). The single statistical data is not sufficient to say how much successful the technology will be over long time. (Mis)Use of Bluetooth for ads is mentioned in the main text and the example may be added there. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply But the primary criteria for notability is that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The Wall Street Journal and CNN are undoubtedly reliable sources. And if you look at the references used in the article, they are from 2005, 2006, and 2007. So it seems to me that this satisfied WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep It writes (and warns) about a technology to spread spam. Similarly, we could delete articles about spam, thieves or biological warfare. All these things exist and people should be aware of them. Nevertheless, I would rename the article to "bluetooth spam" or a similar name.147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Sean Fitzgereau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No support for claim of notability. "Sean Fitzgerald" "competitive eating" only hits Knowledge (XXG), and "Sean Fitzgereau" gets nothing (-The Bold Guy- (talk · contribs) moved the article, but didn't change the content). I should note that the given source contains no mention of this person, no matter the spelling. Without any reliable sources, or even any crappy unreliable ones, this fails WP:V. — Scientizzle 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion Please move it from that list! The real name should be "Fitzgerald" instead of "Fitzgereau"; I wrongly made the move and ask you to move it back! When you do so, you'll see you will find hits on google. Please, most back to Sean Fitzgerald and I assure you you'll find hits on google to that name! Then you can get this article of the list for deletion. Thanks in advanche, -The Bold Guy- (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The move can happen later, but won't fix the fact that there's no Google hits for "Sean Fitzgerald" "competitive eating" and there's no "Sean Fitzgerald" on the given reference. — Scientizzle 17:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. There is also a state office holder in New York with the same name, who is not the same person. Bearian (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:V is policy and I can't find anything to back this person up in terms of reliable sources.--h i s r e s e a r c h 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete There are no reputable outside sources that back up this article. The only source given doesn't mention this person at all. TGreenburgPR (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The move has caused some degree of confusion; I've just closed Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Sean Fitzgerald, where the supposed subject of this article has commented, asking for "keep but clean-up". ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:HOAX - no evidence provided for the existence of this person. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 09:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Aylsham high school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Delete vanity page for nn school Mayalld (talk) 16:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, as non-notable. Thanks!, ‽² (Talk²/Contributions²) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep History has shown that with a small amount of work most articles on High Schools can be improved to meet notability requirements. Note that this AFD was started 1 minute after the creation of the article. This article should be allowed to improve to the level of most High School articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- keep - firstly artical has been edited to better suit wikipedia criterea. - secondly mayalld if clearly a head teacher of a jealous school and wishes to keep pages about other schools off wikipedia, lokk at the school page's nominated for deletion aver the past few weeks he has nominated over half of them yet ignors any vanity in other articles not concerning rival schools.
- Comment I would caution you to assume good faith. I am not the headteacher of any school. I amd not a teacher at all. Mayalld (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep With a few additions I've just made, the school clearly meets WP:N criteria with information from two local newspaper articles, including one about the school receiving a national award. I've wikified it a bit, but more should be done, perhaps including changes to my edits. A minute is really too soon to be nominating a school for deletion. Knowledge (XXG) has a long and strong tradition of letting articles grow as an alternative to proposing deletion, and 60 seconds is not enough time to determine that a subject is not notable. Particularly since I was able to determine that it is notable in about the same period.Noroton (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep Above and beyond the broad general consensus on notability of high schools, this article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Knowledge (XXG):Notability standard. Kudos to User:Josef-harn, the article's creator, and to User:Noroton for their work in expanding the article. I am deeply disturbed by yet another example of a drive-by AfD, created within one minute of the article's creation. I fail to see how on earth the nominator could have fulfilled his obligations under Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy to assess notability, edit, improve or merge the article in the 60 seconds after the article was created. Furthermore, as specified at Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol (of which our nominator is a member), patrollers are cautioned to "patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author." All Wikipedians should be appropriately annoyed that any AfDs are being created with this unjustifiable haste. Alansohn (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Kindly stick to the issue in point (the deletion or otherwise of this article), rather than indulging in personal attacks on me for nominating the article. Mayalld (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no, that wasn't a personal attack, that was a criticism. There's a big diffierence. And it was a criticism of an action that costs the rest of us time and bother. That criticism belongs right here because it should be read by other editors so that they can consider whether or not they want to burden their fellow Knowledge (XXG) editors in the same unnecessary way. A personal attack would have disparaged you as an editor or as a person, which would have been wrong and which Alansohn did not do. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment per WP:DUCK it was a personal attack. The only issues in an AfD are about the article, and criticisms of the bringing of the AfD ought to have no bearing on the AfD, and are consequently irrelevant. Mayalld (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reply: With respect, per WP:DUCK: "Then show proof (webbed feet, bill, etc) proving as much." Noroton (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment per WP:DUCK it was a personal attack. The only issues in an AfD are about the article, and criticisms of the bringing of the AfD ought to have no bearing on the AfD, and are consequently irrelevant. Mayalld (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no, that wasn't a personal attack, that was a criticism. There's a big diffierence. And it was a criticism of an action that costs the rest of us time and bother. That criticism belongs right here because it should be read by other editors so that they can consider whether or not they want to burden their fellow Knowledge (XXG) editors in the same unnecessary way. A personal attack would have disparaged you as an editor or as a person, which would have been wrong and which Alansohn did not do. Noroton (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Kindly stick to the issue in point (the deletion or otherwise of this article), rather than indulging in personal attacks on me for nominating the article. Mayalld (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - I see why the authors are unhappy, but so far nothing in the present article has suggested anything notable about Aylsham High School. The references now there show that the school exists, has a uniform and has feeder schools, has banned mobile phones, has an award-winning anti-bullying project and so on. If it has notable features, then the nature of an AfD is that there's time to add and reference them. As the article stands now, if this school is notable (suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia) then it seems to me that most schools are. And that can't be what notability is about. Xn4 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree What the references show is that multiple, independant, reliable,secondary sources find the school and what occurs there "Worthy of Note" which is the heart of WP:N. This is refleced in the fact that WP:OUTCOMES notes that the majority of High School articles have been found notable when they arive at AFD. Although it's not policy at this time I believe that this article as it now stands it would also fall in line with the proposed WP:SCHOOL policy.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - most high schools can be sourced to meet WP:N which is why the consensus is that they are notable. OTOH most elementary schools don't have such sources available so that consensus is that they should be merged except for a notable minority. To say that an "award-winning anti-bullying project" is not notable is, frankly, bizarre. TerriersFan (talk) 23:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - High school, seems to meet notability. Glad we can keep having this same argument everyday. matt91486 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - another very poor nomination. Sources should be sought before nominating. The school now meets WP:N and further sources are available from which additional expansion can take place. TerriersFan (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. JERRY contribs 00:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - High schools are notable and this should not have been up for AfD within one minute of the the article's creation. --Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Numerous sources help establish notability and verify content. Meets notability guidelines. --Hdt83 05:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep. This nomination clearly violates editing policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Did you enjoy joining in with the personal attacks? There is nothing in WP:EP which forbids nominating an article for AfD, and I invite you to retract your incorrect statement above. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Claiming that a nomination violates policy is no more a personal attack than claiming that an article violates policy. From WP:EP: "the submission of rough drafts should also be encouraged as much as possible" and "...in cases in which the article obviously has no redeeming merit whatsoever, delete it outright. The decision to take the latter action should not be made lightly, however". Making a decision that an article is worthy of deletion with only one minute's thought is taking it lightly. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The article was submitted to AfD, a process which gives 5 days to reach a conclusion to delete an article. That is hardly taking the decision lightly. There are huge numbers of articles in Knowledge (XXG) that are there, not because somebody actually has something useful to say on the subject, but because somebody thought there ought to be an article on the subject but had nothing to actually say about it. There aren't enough people around to "save" more than a small proportion of such articles, and for the most part articles that have been created as a placeholder by somebody with nothing to say should be deleted. Nine times out of ten, that is their fate. Occasionally somebody will come along and improve the article instead, but it is the exception. I have no problem with any of this. If I AfD an article and it is improved instead, all well and good (want to bet that it would still have been improved if I added a couple of improvement tags to it, because experience says otherwise). What I object to is the actions of a small group of editors who don't want to argue the individual case, but would rather fling a bit of mud with false accusations of breaches of policy in the hope that it will "see-off" the nominator from nominating anything in their domain again. My nomination clearly runs counter to the consensus in this case, which I accept. That does NOT mean that nominating it was a breach of policy, and I find the wikilawyering that people have indulged in here very distasteful. It is also a complete waste of your time, because I'm not somebody who runs away when faced with bullying. I will continue to nominate articles that I believe have no merit as I see fit, although you may rest assured that there will be no mass nominations to make a WP:POINT. I have no intention whatsoever of stooping to the same level as those who have attacked me. Mayalld (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. I have made no personal attack, and invite you to withdraw that accusation. I simply gave my opinion on what should happen to this nomination and provided a reference to policy in support of that opinion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment please re-read what you wrote! Yes, you gave your opinion on what should happen to this nomination. Upon that much we can agree, and whilst our views differ that is all well and good. However, given that the policy you quoted contains no injunction forbiding nominating articles for consideration by AfD it cannot have been in support of your keep opinion. Your post was more to do with trying to warn me off nominating in your playground than it was about the outcome of this AfD. Mayalld (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The inability to distinguish between practices that are not explicitly prohibited by Knowledge (XXG) policy, and the failure to consider the clearest possible admonitions in Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy, Knowledge (XXG):Editing policy and elsewhere to respect the new articles being created by researching, editing, improving, merging or tagging articles before the mad dash to deletion, has raised justifiable concerns by nearly all participants in this AfD, which was submitted in under 60 seconds after the article was created. Among all the rhetorical backflips and rationalizations, I particularly enjoy the promise that "you may rest assured that there will be no mass nominations to make a WP:POINT", which unfortunately is already happening. The overwhelming rejection of your arguments for deletion here AND of the circumstances under which you created this AfD, should represent a rather clear consensus that you need to reevaluate the criteria and practices you use in proposing articles for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment That is not the case, and I invite you to retract it. I have indeed nominated a number of articles for deletion, but that is nothing new. What is also not new is that the majority of articles that I nominate are actually deleted. Sure they don't all get deleted, and I'm sometimes at odds with others as to whether an article is notable, but why is that a problem? You seem to be attempting to create a situation where people don't dare nominate anything for deletion lest the bullies leap in and give them a good kicking. Mayalld (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The problem seems to stem from the near total involvement in deletion of articles and the corresponding lack of involvement in creating and improving articles. There are surely many articles that merit deletion, speedy or otherwise. Yet there are many articles created each day that are worthy articles, that need to be improved and expanded. For all articles other than hoaxes or complete nonsense, the nominator has an obligation to investigate potential claims of notability. What seems to be happening -- and you are far from alone in this disorder -- is that after reading so many articles looking for potential deletes, that they all start looking like deletes, and you stop making the effort to bother even checking. That so many of your nominations have been so resoundingly rejected should tell you that your "deletedar" is picking up articles that have little or no justification for deletion. You need to start recognizing that these instant deletions, created within minutes of creation, send the worst possible message about Knowledge (XXG) to those new editors creating their first articles. Making a genuine attempt to observe Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy and demonstrating good faith to all articles and their creators, will go along way in dealing with these disruptive problems. Spending a day or two solely editing, improving and adding sources to the articles you would otherwise have prodded or AfDed, can go a long way to understanding the position of the targets of your persistent deletion efforts. Alansohn (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep: Verifiable, NPOV, noted by the press. Comment: Poorly written new articles can be tagged, contributors can be given helpful advice, articles in tag categories can be combed for improvement/AfD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep notable etc. Also, people please tag things before bringing them to AfD unless you have reason to believe they won't be able to be shown to be notable. At this point, bringing a High School here should not be done lightly. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete and redirect to Thames Valley District School Board. For detailed rationale, see talk page JERRY contribs 21:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Riverside Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Delete nn primary school Mayalld (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Please not another school Afd... We need to have a better consensus regarding schools because there are many editors that have it in their mind that all schools are notable and another set where some are and some aren't. As I know it, the some are and some aren't have been the prominent view point... so I ask that those who are feeling all schools are notable, please consider the true notability of this article. --Pmedema (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, expanding on the comment. It may be useful for editors to read Knowledge (XXG):Notability (schools) before expressing an opinion. To summarize, there is no current consensus on broad notability guidelines for schools, so each has to be considered on its own merits. WP:N is the guideline to follow here. --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not notable. GJ (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect to the school district Thames Valley District School Board. RMHED (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep We should be adding more school articles to Knowledge (XXG) not DELETING THEM I think you should give this project an extra 4-6 weeks until the school knows about it, by then the article will be bigger!!! Mofeed.sawan (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Although I see the need to add more information to make this article worthy of being on Knowledge (XXG), I do see value in giving our younger audience some more time to get this article up-to-standard. I think three to four weeks is reasonable giving that its Christmas holidays and kids are busy with other (none school related) activities! After all, what’s four weeks if we can get elementary schools excited about our great repository of knowledge - Knowledge (XXG)?Wayne.Rashid (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) — Wayne.Rashid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Merge to either Thames Valley District School Board or List of schools in London, Ontario. Insufficient secondary sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Merge/Redirect to Thames Valley District School Board. The far bigger problem is the knee jerk deletionism, usually evidenced by a perfunctory "per nom" as an excuse for deletion, without any evidence that the article has been read, let alone its notability meaningfully considered. As with most primary schools, there are few secondary sources available, and this article exemplifies that. If additional sources become available, the article can be changed from a redirect to a a standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I can't see how you can Merge Riverside to the School board, also Why do you have to delete the article? 21:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect Delete and redirect to school district page. Primary schools should not have their own pages. -- Dougie WII (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete then
RedirectAs written, this school fails even the generous proto-policy for school notability. The absence here of the usual editors who find sources and improve the article suggests that they tried and failed to do so. AnteaterZot (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC) - Question: Could someone please explain the delete then redirect suggestion. What is the point of that? I would only think that would only be necessary for a copyvio or BLP-violation. "Merge" I understand, "redirect" I could understand, "delete" seems unnecessary but vote is understandable, but "delete and redirect"? An honest request for enlightenment, please. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Typically, children who edit their own school's articles will undo a redirect. Deleting the article makes this harder, and allows for a Speedy Deletion tag under G4. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Typically, children are the ones vandalizing school articles. Why not turn all school articles into redirects and avoid the problem. I have to agree that delete and redirect is counterproductive. Alansohn (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- They can vandalize a redirect. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then let's delete all articles that children might vandalize. That'll show them, those darn whippersnappers! Alansohn (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I'm thinking about my belief that one district page will have more eyes on it than many individual pages. I also think that people are not remembering that Knowledge (XXG)'s search engine will usually lead people to an article even if there is no redirect. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Then let's delete all articles that children might vandalize. That'll show them, those darn whippersnappers! Alansohn (talk) 07:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- They can vandalize a redirect. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I understand the motivation now but strongly disagree with the suggestion. It's even easier to revert than it is to nom CSD. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Typically, children are the ones vandalizing school articles. Why not turn all school articles into redirects and avoid the problem. I have to agree that delete and redirect is counterproductive. Alansohn (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Typically, children who edit their own school's articles will undo a redirect. Deleting the article makes this harder, and allows for a Speedy Deletion tag under G4. AnteaterZot (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable elementary school. -Djsasso (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Chick Flick (movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Unreferenced future film. WP:CRYSTAL. Dougie WII (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. The movie may be coming out but there isn't enough information to make this article worth it. When the movie does come out or is near to coming out and we can achieve WP:V then the article can be recreated. In the mean time it should not be here yet.--Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete pending sources that address WP:V & WP:N. "Chick Flick" "Adam Cano" gets no Google hits. — Scientizzle 23:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:V, WP:CRYSTAL.--h i s r e s e a r c h 04:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was benefit-of-the-doubt Keep. JERRY contribs 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Paulo Bellinati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Tagged for CSD as a non-notable biography, however, a Google search turns some things up. Strictly a procedural nomination. Keilana(recall) 16:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- I speedy-ed the article and restored it after I got a message Bellinati is an important guitarist and composer. A Google search for "Paulo Bellinati" (with quotes) gives 69000 entries and the German and Portuguese wikipedias have Bellinati entries too. No opinion from my side, some references would help greatly. --Tone 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. If someone who knows Portuguese could try looking for references, that'd help. I have no opinion here. He could well be notable going on the evidence.--h i s r e s e a r c h 04:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Appears to be notable from Google searches. Numerous articles about the artist and his work from various sources around the world. Amazon.com lists 34 CD's, some of which are his own productions, while others appear to be collaborations (appeared as a member of the band).--Jeff Johnston (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as unsourced spam. Even if notability can be established the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete nn vessel, and possible WP:COATRACK to enable the author to continue attempts to promote his company Mayalld (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete a 100+ year old ship certainly could be notable, but (sadly) I could find no independent coverage to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete (per WP:N) unless independent, reliable sources demonstrating notability can be produced. They are currently lacking and a preliminary search does not turn any up. MastCell 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; having messed around in boats in the past, I'm afraid that they are rarely notable in and of themselves; with no sources and with the author a suspected puppet/master introducing spam links and advertising for Thames Steam Packet Boat Company trips, I don't feel Knowledge (XXG) will be less of an encyclopedia without this article. ➔ REDVEЯS says: at the third stroke the time will be 22:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment In the past I think we have consistently regarded all ships to be notable, for the usual reason that there is always information available. But this particular article seems to be borderline spam. DGG (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Mecu (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
This person claims to be a published poet and professor, but there is no claim that surpasses WP:PROF. weak delete, pending other opinions. Xoloz (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Author blanked article and the AfD discussion indicating withdrawal--Pmedema (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. JERRY contribs 22:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) Non-notable. Article has plenty of sources, non of which are strictly about the subject. They may mention him in passing, but notability requires significant coverage from multiple third-party reliable sources. One award is named in the article - from a local brewery. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep and cleanup. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Long original research essay on a fictional object. The only sources used are primary sources and there is no real world context. Ridernyc (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Essay. No encyclopedic content. TheBilly (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Music event with questionable notability. Dougie WII (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Keep JERRY contribs 04:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary Knowledge (XXG):NOT#DICTIONARY nor Knowledge (XXG):NOT#GUIDE. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedic reference. Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete --JForget 00:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Original research / no context. Clearly the author is using "Syed" with a meaning different from the two given in the Syed stub but does not define that meaning. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was No consensus --JForget 00:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete Once it actually airs and establishes notability it can be recreated. JERRY contribs 04:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
contested prod article with no real world context about an episode that has not even aired yet. Kind of hard for this episode to have any notability since no one has seen it yet. Ridernyc (talk) 15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Contested prod. Non-notable club, playing well below the Step 6 notability threshold and with no past history to make it significant. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete --JForget 00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Notability in question since September. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO. Unreferenced, and there's some non-sense with "She retired from hardcore in 2006 following the advice of eurobabeindex's pet bunny and friend and very rarely shoots even for softcore work." Vinh1313 (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Keep JERRY contribs 04:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC) This is a band that won some local and student awards, but does not appear to have made any kind of wider impression. There are no sources for the one claim of notability, and the link is wrong, it links to the Hindu word, we don't have an article on the track. Tagged for cleanup in September, not cleaned up. Guy (Help!) 14:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Keep. Notability and NPOV have been satisfied. Most of the concerns on the wording and material that should not be included are not issues for WP:AFD. These issues should instead be taken directly to WP:EDIT. JERRY contribs 04:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete vanity article by/about nn organisation. The article has many, many references, all of which appear to be self published. Mayalld (talk) 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Riversider2008 (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Not even close to being notable enough. Mentioned in only three or four episodes and was never a major part of any plot. Philip Stevens (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete nn neoligism (only 28 GHITS for "Pure click company") Mayalld (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep (AfD withdrawn by nom); non-admin closure. Funeral 19:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The list has no refs and it's easily replaceable with Category:Punk rock groups. Funeral 14:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This book series is hardly notable, mostly so for being still unpublished and likely to stay so for more than one year, and not exactly feverishly covered by the media: the only sources are the official websites (the article is tagged as unsourced since October). Goochelaar (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge with cherub main page, i didnt learn anything new —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.13.35 (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Redundant, information already given on relevant pages. StuartDD contributions 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Ditto. DonQuixote (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be provided to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. JERRY contribs 04:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Delete NN band claims to have charted, but the chart (soundclick.com) is not a national chart Mayalld (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Redirect to Blackout (Britney Spears album). JERRY contribs 05:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
This is an album track on Britney Spears' latest record. There is no news or source stating that this will be released as a single, nor is there any information on a possible music video. The song does not seem to have any notability other than the fact that it appears on her album. Although the article's writing is not poor per se (there are even footnotes) I question the notability of this track... seems to be written by a fan who particularly likes this one song. Does it really need its own article? eo (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't see no harm in this song having it's own article, to be frank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.158.80 (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC) AfDs for this article:
Delete - No WP:RS found to verify the existence of this neighborhood. Even if it isn't WP:MADEUP it is extremely doubtful that such a tiny area would be WP:N Mayalld (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Merge/redirect to Kemalist ideology; action completed. JERRY contribs 05:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as soapboxing/attacking fork from the main Kemalism article Mayalld (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Every argument in this article is academically referenced. This argument is based on the peer reviewed publications. There is no reason for deletion. Rather, it would be vandalism deleting it. of course kemalist wikipedians are frightened. And want it to be deleted. But Knowledge (XXG) is an Encyclopeda and can not bias itself in favor of any ideology including Kemalism. The article even cites European Court of Human Rights press releases. This article only depicts the facts about kemalism. Kemalist ideology article does not include any criticism. Like Communism and Criticism of communism it is better to construct two seperate articles. Deleting this article would be not only violating wikipedia policies and rules but also a commiting a crime against humanity. --Polysynaptic (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge Both articles contain useful referenced information that should not be lost from Knowledge (XXG). I see two options: keep them both in the present form, or merge them. The worst thing to happen would be to simply delete this article, and lose the information it contains. I'm leaning toward advocating the merger of the two articles into one as neither can be described as NPOV in their present form - I can see this would involve a lot of work to make it flow and create an article that both sides could live with - lots more heat than light to come I fear. Riversider2008 (talk) 14:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC) The article is not POV fork. There are many if so: But i will not resist if merging is wiki policy. merging is ok but deletion would not be helping. --Polysynaptic (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. BLACKKITE 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) A "new pokemon" that was "found" with Gameshark. Original research; Also fails WP:NOT#GUIDE TheBilly (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite know what do to with this one. I don't feel that it needs an article, but I'm not sure what policy (if any) would apply. The phrase is common enough (I've used it myself), and not quite slang. I pondered merging it into List of U.S. Army acronyms and expressions, but it's not isolated to military usage. Yngvarr 12:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was keep. Notability has now been established. Non-admin closure. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete Vanity article for NN company Mayalld (talk) 12:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC) I'm submitting this under WP:NN. Beyond the fact that there are no references provided, the standard google searches pull up pretty much nothing (other than wiki mirrors). I can't find anything. The context is very unclear: a hobby operating system. That could mean a project for personal edification, something done for a thesis, or something that is released to the general public. Yngvarr 12:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
|