The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Stub article for non notable, pre-release software project, created by user with no previous or subsequent edits. (Note: Many google hits for "InteGrade," but almost all are a different InteGrade.) Steven Fisher00:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... article is very buzzword-compliant, new editor, but seems to have a handle on how to edit things. Either really clever or WP:COI. That said, the software is not released yet, ergo WP:CRYSTAL very much applies to this. Delete as crystalballery. --Dennisthe200:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
RedirecttoEndurance (TV series). The only added information here is the table and list of challenges and winners. That probably could do to be prettied up and merged into the main show article. I know there was discussion about splitting off from the main article as it grew, but I'm not convinced there's enough here yet to warrant a split. In the future, with good additions, I'm open to the possibility, though. —C.Fred (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Stub article appears to be a vanity article with absolutely no context given for assertion of subject's notability. A Google search (filtering out as many Wikipedia mirrors as possible) returned only 5 results, none of which provided any additional information about the article's subject. Bumm1300:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteA7 and tagged as such. absolutely no assertion of anything except his existance in the article. only one non-mirror/wikipedia site that google finds his name onand no news articles at all - Peripitus(Talk)03:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
In-Universe fancruft, Creator User:Elestar seems to be generatign a lot of fiction oriented entries, even going so far as to ask on the AfD talk that some not be deleted, as they will soon be rewwritten into a full fiction story. ThuranX00:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt along with all of the author's other work. She is vandalizing Forgotton Realms pages with made up stories about her own NWN2 character. It is a Mary Sue of no importance. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post stories about your Mary-Sues. Shimaspawn01:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Salt - if there were some higher-level of expunging this from the encyclopedia, I would endorse it. Exterminatus? Purgatus? Absolutely non-notable, purely un-encyclopedic vanity editing to insert an editors personal work into an established body of material. Totally unacceptable. --Haemo01:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and: Identical text and formatting to this wiki as well, implying a possible copyvio. Yes, most likely the copyright holder created both pages, but "most likely" isn't good enough. Wikipedia needs to avoid all possible copyright violations. -Markeer03:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well, just seeing if anyone's bothering to read this far down. Yeah, these articles aren't such a good idea. How about Delete and Nu-Salt? I think we've hit our RDA of sodium by now. --Action Jackson IV04:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: Speedily deleted (no claim of notability), on the grounds that an article about your private fiction/RPG setting/character/etc. is essentially an article about you. - Mike Rosoft12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt along with all of the author's other work. She is vandalizing Forgotton Realms pages with made up stories about her own NWN2 character. It is a Mary Sue of no importance. Wikipedia is not a place for you to post stories about your Mary-Sues. Shimaspawn01:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As much as I don't want to say it, keep. I managed to remove the made up bits from this article and the rest is actually salvageable. Stick a clean up tag on it, but it's not that bad with the Mary-Sues removed. Shimaspawn01:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article probably still needs a little cleaning, but as far as fictional D&D critters go, it's referenced in not just a bunch of rule books, but novels as well. Perhaps it may warrant a merge to a larger D&D/Faerûn-related article down the line, but deletion seems a bit much. (A quick glance.)Bitnine16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is this more of a fiction article than any of the Pokemon articles or video game character articles? There is a difference between articles about fiction and articles that are fiction. Shimaspawn17:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The good Pokemon articles do attempt to talk about their characters above and beyond just what the character is capable of and plot line details. They also include some real world analysis or context and references outside of the fictional world. Dugwiki18:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending references and context The article currently suffers from two serious problems. The first is that it has no references to demonstrate that it's not original research. The second is that, as per the recommendations in WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:FICT, the article should provide verifiable information and analysis on the real-world context and importance of the subject. At the very least, you should provide some references to demonstrate that this monster isn't the equivalent of just a "minor character" in the core D&D fictional universe. The first problem is more serious than the second, but I'd probably want to see both issues dealt with to recommend keeping the article. Dugwiki
Hm, as far as the OR goes, a reference like this may be able to help out a little. I've put some preliminary sourcing on the talk page and cleared up some copyrighted material as well. (Redacted self, no need to overflow this page.) Bitnine19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Bit. I think mentioning the real-world use of the monster in multiple novels outside just the game rules would probably help it establish some notability per WP:FICT. Information from the references you mention on the talk page of the article could be incorporated into the text to show that the creature was adapted for use by a variety of authors and doesn't just appear as a minor creature in a particular D&D rules book. Given those references, I'm changing my recommendation to Keep pending additional references, meaning I'll support keeping the article with the assumption that it will have sufficient sourcing in due course. Dugwiki22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
zax is a dictionary article that tells us about the word. zax (tool) is an encyclopaedia article that tells us about the tool. Should an encyclopaedia discuss such a tool? The New American Cyclopaedia: a popular dictionary of general knowledge, written in 1862 (George Ripley and Charles Anderson Dana; New York: D. Appleton and Company), seems to think that an encyclopaedia should discuss such a tool, documenting the zax as it does on page 695, in the entry for SLATE. Moreover, for a picture of a zax, see figure 232 on page 117 of ISBN 1850320160. That discusses the zax along with several other slater's tools, such as the "ripper" and the "lath hammer". Wikipedia should probably discuss the zax in context with these other slater's tools, too. But since we don't even have an entry for the trade of slater yet, let alone an article on the tools of that trade, there's no article to merge this one into, and certainly no reason to throw the content of this article away. Keep. Uncle G01:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In 1862, these were probably in almost as common use as hammers. Now, they are obscure collectors' items. The tool might have an interesting history, I suppose, but none of that is in this article. I think this will be a dusty stub for a very long time if kept. Brianyoumans03:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Slate. One of several tools for manipulating slate, I could see an article eventually linked from Slate. If enough accumulate, mine the information and split off. Until then, it will not be too much of a burden to Slate. I have seen at least one good external article about slate mining (unbelievable-aint-it) and they didn't have good descriptions of the tools (though one description of a fellow splitting a 1/8" thick 12 foot long section!) Shenme03:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Uncle G it appears to be a legitimate article to have in an encyclopedia, and it is my view that its very obscurity (which does not equal non-notability) makes it the ideal type of article to have in our encyclopedia. Dusty stubs aren't any less useful to some for being dusty, and I don't think we should make anyone looking for information about this tool wade through the whole article on Slate, although a link from there might be a useful touch, for readers who are already reading that article. —Carolfrog05:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn I can see where this is headed, and it is nowhere good. I hadn't tried something like this before, and it seems I shouldn't try it again. --Brianyoumans08:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:27Z
Delete - unsourced and very editorial. That station is some small college station anyway. Maybe he'll be somebody someday but that day isn't today. - Arch NME18:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per arguments above; article creator has not responded to requests for notability clarification and has not edited the article since September 6 (the day it was created). — PSUMark2006talk | contribs21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete - It seems like all the facts of the article are at least correct. I slapped one source on there(a link to his book). I'm thinking assistant professor, a few journal articles and one not very notable coauthored book isn't cutting it though. Sorry Ramin, keep up the good work though and I love your noodles. - Arch NME18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. First published yesterday?! Yes, neologism, no references except the made-up-in-the-school-paper-one-day. Shenme03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO without prejudice to proper recreation in the future (somewhat doubtful). The term was invented 2-3 days ago in an op-ed piece by an individual who has published previous op-ed pieces in The Stanford Daily (see [1]). It may be appropriately recreated if the term catches on or becomes the subject of controversy. Until it does, ... -- Black Falcon17:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Okay, I like Uriah Heep as much as the next person, but can see two problems with this article. It's nothing more than a dicdef and a link farm. Given the topic it will never be anything more than a dicdef. Suggest either deleting or merging with Uriah Heep (band). Dragomiloff01:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Uriah Heep (band), then change to redirect. I can find apparently long-standing references to the 'term', (e.g. "Hi, here is Rodrigo Werneck, a Heepster from Brazil."). But that it is still just a definition, which could (should?) be inside the Uriah Heep (band) article. Shenme03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article, at this point in time, is too small. I reccomend that it be merged with other articles. Jtg92023:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Uriah Heep (band) per above. Also merge the references to the "External links" section--they may aid in the development of the Uriah Heep article and can always be removed if found to be irrelevant. -- Black Falcon17:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:30Z
Aside from glaring POV problems ("his distinguished portfolio", "He is an exemplary role model for the Indian-American community"), this is an unsourced biography of a living person. Someone has questioned the veracity of the info in the article [2], and it's hard to know how seriously to take this without sourcing. One of the two external links is broken and I can't figure out what the other has to do with the subject. The assertion of notability is very vague:
has gained extraordinary critical acclaim and has influenced many of the world's most prestigious artists including Christopher Simmons, the current president of AIGA. Today, at age 14, he is recognized as one of the growing number of talented youth proteges who are gaining a major following, both from the general public and also special audiences
Only found about 9 ghits, none I thought would be good for sourcing. To NPOV the article would be to take out almost all of the content, so I say delete. delldottalk01:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Seems like a bright 14 year old but he can host his resume on his own site. This one is almost laughable. -Arch NME18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I believe that we shall, as Wikipedians, respect the young folks and thier accomplishments. In fact, I personally know Kaushik, of whom the article was made because he is my nephew, and it seems to me that most, if not all the information in this article is true. However, I was surprised to see an article on him, especially such a lucidly written, almost professional-seeming article; it surprises me to see who would write about him. I bet that there are several non-googlable sources about him, and his work is visible for example, at http://www.kv17.com/scans; i have never seen such beautiful work throughout my life. I think that instead we shall keep this article but keep an eye on it and mark it for possible improvements. Sridhar Venkateshagopalan 4:19 6 March 2007 (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:31Z
Delete unless properly sourced post-haste. While Google has assured me that such an animation exists, I cannot find any sources which meet WP:VorWP:RS that would assert or defend notability. --Haemo02:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If someone could come up with a source about Skittles Vodka (a fact-checked article describing the drink, not just a website how-to-make-it), then I would suggest adding (smerge/redirect) the information provided in the source to the Skittles article. If no about-source can be provided, the article should be deleted. -- saberwyn11:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a full explanation of the chemistry underlying why blue Skittles make vodka turn brown is added. If you mix Skittles candy with vodka, they dissolve. What will science come up with next? (It is also unclear why Skittlebrau redirects to an article about an episode of The Simpsons.) - Smerdis of Tlön15:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I appreciate the advice that I avoid white candy so that my vodka doesn't turn into a "semen-like mess" this is - surprise - a how-to. Bitnine16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Love it, tempted to try it too as I have a bottle of vodka in the cupboard - but its not for wikipedia. May I suggest the creator post his vodka receipe to a food channel forum where it will be truely appriciated and may one day become world famous and then you can post to wikipedia! --PrincessBrat19:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to be different and say keep, we have pages for many other kinds of cocktails and mixers so why not this? It needs a serious rewrite but I dont see a reason why the concept of a page for this should be abandoned. --Mercifull(Talk/Contribs)13:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable club musician, unpublished, and misspelled name to boot (pun). The pun is that the same editor created Slippery Boot, a club that was one of his venues, which apparently was speedied. The reason I did not speedy this is that very probably the intended person is "Jay Aymar", which does get Google hits for the Ottawa area, but not for anything published or recent. So more research is welcome, but I can't find anything even for the corrected name. Shenme02:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "known for great work done in small local bars". Says it all really. No more than an article about somebody's mate. -- Necrothesp18:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Well I searched and there certainly is no notable Jay Amyar and even if it is supposed to be about this other guy, Jay Aymar, there is nothing in this stub even worth saving. - Arch NME19:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because of this thread, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Article appears to be a vanity page promoted by members of the "warez" scene; the nature of that scene (anonymity, etc.) makes it nearly impossible to cite proper sources in addition to the page's likely-vanity status. The article also appears to generally be spam. Bumm1303:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Meh, it's notable enough for me to have heard of it multiple times before. Also, I don't much like deleting articles that have build up this much content (good or bad) unless it's just complete BS.--SeizureDog15:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Porn site. How many porn sites are there out there? Websites have a pretty high notability threshold and this doesn't meet it. -- Necrothesp19:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. HentaiPalm is not just a little "porn site". It contains one of the largest and most active Hentai forums online. We have an article devoted to a pure warez site (AstalaVista) yet that article is untouched. And I do not see how listing the history behind the site and the forum listing could be considered "spam". Draknfyre20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of research I would appreciate not being tagged as a single-purpose account. Checking my contributions would eliminate that idea immediately. Nice research before tagging me with it. Draknfyre10:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I can't. I'm just a regular member there who has been around and seen these historic events happen. It's a large community; thousands of people have seen these events take place. I would like the history to be known and the sacrifices people have made to keep it alive over the years. Highneko01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It's more notable than a number of erotica-based articles on Wikipedia, but it's not too notable outside of the community that they have there. InsaneZeroG01:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over half of the content in the passage is verifiable, just visit the site. As for vanity, that is completely false. Hentai means perversion, and usually refers to anime perversion. This is a form or art, not pornography. The site does have a small vain section, but this article is about hentaipalm and its affiliates, not a small portion of the forum. To call this vanity would be saying Da Vinci's work as well as any other artist that uses nudity in his work is vanity and should be deleted. As for veriability, most of wikipedia is unverifiable information, so that is a very weak argument. Sabuske 20:51, 6 March 2007 — Sabuske (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep The accusations of Spam, Conflict of Interest, Advertising, and Spam are each unfounded (To Sabuske... When they say Vanity, they are saying that the article is only there to show off or advertise, rather than share information). With regards to Spam/Advertising, this article is not an advertisement. It is a recounting of the history of HentaiPalm from its conception to the present. The only way you're likely to find this article is if you are already aware of HentaiPalm and want to know more about it, either by clicking the link in the history thread on the site or by searching for the site here, either of which would make the "advertising" null and void. It also bears mentioning that although the article alludes to the growth of popularity over time, nowhere does it claim that HentaiPalm is the "best" or "greatest" of its kind, something typically present in any advertisement. For the accusation of Conflict of Interest, it should be noted that it was not the owner nor any staff member of HentaiPalm who wrote this article. The author did use Numbus as his primary source, although there are indeed some sources online for those who hunt them down. Drakkenfyre has added some of those links to the article for verification. There is an issue on the count of notability, since hentai sites do not generate a lot of mainstream publicity. However, the information included in this article is accurate, much of it is verifiable, and it is arranged and worded professionally. The article is about a site that has diminished and grown over the course of five years, not something that just popped up overnight. I would push for this article to stay as is, or be merged in some way. It does not warrant deletion. Swaswj02:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC) — Swaswj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
According to the description of reliable sources, it claims that articles can refer to primary sources (documents or people close to the subject). Since the author garnered much of this information from posts by the site owner and various veteran members, and since the majority if not all of these posts can be referenced by anyone without requiring specialist knowledge, they would appear to me as reliable sources under Wikipedia's guidelines. Regardless, I get the impression from the Delete arguments that the veracity of the article is not in question. It appears to be being targeted based on the subject matter of the site itself, which begs the question of Wiki's neutrality. In the end, however, this doesn't hurt HentaiPalm itself, as this information will still be available on the site's forums, so I don't feel a need to debate this further. Swaswj16:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of that really goes to notability, however. Why is this website notable over the thousands of others that are out there?Chunky Rice22:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article's failure to attribute the information contained within the article to reliable, independent sources, the article reading like a veiled advertisement, as well as the apparent failure to meet the notability criteria on web content. Kyra~(talk)09:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I said I wouldn't debate further, and so I won't. However, I would ask you (all of you) to explain how you can call this article an advertisement. It is simply an account of the site's change and growth over the years. Swaswj15:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename to IEEE 802.9. —Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:33Z
Article is a stub, which is written in jargon and which no users seems able to expand to make coherent or informative. The technology is outdated, and no longer (if ever) notable. A Google search returns under 750 results, with at least 15 being a duplicate of the article found on Wikipedia. The technology is no longer commonly used, and deals with the concatenation of ISDN data lines, which have not been economically-feasible for several years. The article cannot be developed, is not notable, and is out of common usage. Voice your opinion in the proper location. Freedomlinux03:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not find the article incredibly useful, as per User:bpmullins, it should be maintained because of its status as an IEEE standard. At the time of nomination I was not aware of this, and now I agree that the article should be moved to IEEE 802.9 and rewritten. So, that is a nomination withdrawn, unless there is a preference to delete and start fresh at the new name. Freedomlinux04:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Sorry to appear like a sock puppet, but the band is in no way notable. Little possibility of someone seeking information on this band. Even if they were, just by knowing the band enough to identify them by name, the user would probably know all of the information already on the page. Freedomlinux03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a little looking, and I think this band article is salvagable - they have gigged as far away as Ottawa and New Mexico, and have various bits of press out about them. They appear to be in Europe at the moment, although I'm not sure whether they are touring there or just visiting and playing the odd gig here and there - it's unclear from their website. Only one album, but several EPs and some compilations might suffice. It should of course be moved to The Lords (Louisville) or something like that if kept. Brianyoumans13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criterion G12; all revisions are unquestionably copyright infringement from [3], and no assertion of permission has been made. So tagged. Kyra~(talk)09:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was speedied, author argued that it shouldn't have been and recreated article. Now marking for deletion so it can be reviewed and consensus reached. More to follow in comments. Improbcat03:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete see author's comment in my talk page and the subsequent discussion in his talk page for my opinions and reasons for this at length. Short version: the Wikiality thing has long been dealt with and lots of pages have been created, moved, changed, merged, etc. to deal with it, and this new page adds nothing useful to the topic. Improbcat03:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (Speedy delete if possible) for now per WP:NEO. Not to mention this article has no references and weak WP:NPOV, but thats an entirely different matter. Danski1403:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete (concur with speedy if possible), WP:OR extrapolation from a single quote by Colbert. Concepts already covered in other Colbert-related articles. Krimpet04:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:34Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
NN losing survivor reality game show contestant, being eliminated on a special case (eg rock picking) is certainly not notable. A quick google search [4] turns up 256 ghits (not including Wikipedia and its mirrors), with most of them off fan-sites/forums or his official CBS bio. We dont create pages on losing JeopardyorDeal or No Deal contestants just because they've been on a game show. (except the obvious celebrities on celebrity editions, etc)) --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 03:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to Survivor: Marquesas - it seems that this is an altruistic case of using Wikipedia to further somebody's career - altruistic in that I doubt Paschal himself created this. From my (thankfully) limited exposure to reality TV, the only "stars" I could see passing WP:N would be Pedro Zamora, Puck, and maybe Judd Winick. Maybe I'm just an out-of-touch curmudgeon. --Action Jackson IV04:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge details into appropriate Survivor article, then delete. The only thing notable in this article is the 'event', not the person. And the event relates only to the show itself. Shenme05:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable reality TV show contestant. Being on TV for a bit does not automatically make one notable. -- Necrothesp19:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Previously survived as a bundled nomination of various survivor contestants over 5 months ago which ended as a no consensus-train wreck. Some of them has since been renominated on individual cases, and some has been deleted on the consensus that they were not notable outside the the game show. (e.g [5], [6] &[7])
I will re-nominate this NN Survivor contestant who hasnt done anything since leaving the show (eg fail WP:BIO). Lack of notable secondary references, a quick google search (minus Wikipedia results) turns up [8] 650 ghits, with most of the results off fan-forums or the official CBS site. We dont create pages on losing JeopardyorDeal or No Deal contestants just because they've been on a game show. (except the obvious celebrities on celebrity editions, etc --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just in case you didn't realize it, there is a bit of a difference between being on Jeopardy and being on Survivor. In Survivor, a contestant can be on primetime for 14 weeks. So, I fail to see the comparison. And Kim Johnson was a runner-up, so she was on TV for a lot longer time than Deal or No Deal or most Jeopardy contestants. -- Scorpion04:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial en passant in the big picture. An appearance on Jeopardy! is grasping -- let's err on the side of exclusion in this case. /Blaxthos05:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending independent references As with other game show contestents, including Survivor, the question is whether the article can provide multiple independent (ie not a bio from the show itself) published articles/interviews about this person. Since the article is unreferenced, delete unless sufficient sources are provided. Dugwiki18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another non-notable reality TV show contestant. Being on TV for a bit does not automatically make one notable. -- Necrothesp19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This band doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC -- the only claim to fame is the song on the soundtrack of Eurotrip. But the article has been around so long I thought AFD would be more prudent than speedy-delete. NawlinWiki05:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 If there is something particularly notable to say about a fraternity chapter, I think the place for it would be in the college article, the parent fraternity chapter, or both. I can't see very many fraternity chapters being notable enough for their own article... and this one doesn't even have a pipsqueak of a claim of notability. Out!! --Brianyoumans13:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:37Z
Extensive vanity bio of a "self-described renaissance man" who "got to know the movers and shakers of Quebec society" without being a mover or shaker of said society. He wrote some papers, including "the definitive history" of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Gotta give him credit for sheer nerve. Delete.Wile E. Heresiarch05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC) PS. This page has been on vfd before; see talk:Jeffrey de Fourestier.[reply]
Delete - Truly amazing! I'm not exactly sure what happened with the vfd discussion: it appears that the majority voted for deletion, and the result was ignored. If it was actually deleted and then recreated, then it Speedy. --PhilosophusT06:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"[...]truly a legend in his own mind." I think that says it all Strong Delete. Oh and given the recreations I would suggest possibly salting the page as well. Improbcat13:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any bio that titles the paragraph about childhood as "Beginnings" deserves only one fate: Delete with extreme prejudice and large amounts of salt. EliminatorJRTalk22:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:38Z
Strong keep - Easily meets WP:BAND. You'll find plenty of articles about the band's 2nd album, Cough, if you just do a quick search, and there are even more if you look for pieces about the band more generally. --notJackhorkheimer (talk / contribs) 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have performed general cleanup of the article, changing the formatting of one section, merging two sections together, and removing unsourced promotional statements and other unsourced statements tying the band (or its members) to other bands. I have also added 4 reviews of the band's albums and 2 other sources for their history. The band meets WP:N and the current version of the article mostly complies with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. -- Black Falcon20:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:43Z
Non-notable band. Article a blatant violation of WP:COI, no assertion of notability, reliable published sources nonexistant (WP:ATT noncompliance). Wikipedia is WP:NOT the place to promote your band. /Blaxthos05:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete agreement with nom. The argument on the talk page for keeping the article seems to consist of "The page should remain because I am a member of the band." Fails WP:MUSIC. janejellyroll06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Obvious candidate for deletion. As an article, there are no reliable sources and the topic thus fails the V and RS parts of WP:A. As an article on a scientific topic, it utterly fails the AS criteria of ArbCom-PS. There are few google hits, mostly to discussion boards and "Meta Research". There is essentially no media coverage, so the article cannot be saved by the Time Cube route. PhilosophusT06:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (not decided yet). I do not necessarily think that this should be "deleted", as this is a valid historical hypothesis. However, I do not think that this article can be expanded: Could the main author provide some reputable sources to prove otherwise? Also, I think that the title is not very descriptive and confusing. A merge with solar system, or some related topic, might be more appropriate. In the absence of a response, I will vote delete. Lunokhod09:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the hypothesis that this article is covering is the modern hypothesis by Tom Van Flandern, which, if I understand correctly, uses his own pet theory of gravitation. It is true that the entirety of the current article could be deleted and re-sourced with proper sources to cover the historical hypothesis, however. --PhilosophusT20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of hits via google on this theory, it is a well known possiblity that a planet did exist between Mars and Jupiter. I do think this needs more expansion but I think it should be kept as it does link to the planet v article. --PrincessBrat10:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Delete as per my comments below Uncle G @ 18:30[reply]
If thats the case why dont all the articles link to each other since there are varying hypothesis on this subject? And doesnt this article that is being considered for deletion act as a gateway to these articles? --PrincessBrat16:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, I accept your above point and Im now stating this should be deleted - being in agreement this content is already covered, but note this is contrary to the original nomination which I therefore do not agree with! --PrincessBrat19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is based on the fact that the article isn't covering the historical hypothesis, but the modern nonsense by Tom Van Flandern which doesn't satisfy RS, AS, or any notability guidelines. --PhilosophusT20:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added in the references for the EPH material, haven't had time to start the rest, should clear up some of the "pseudoscience" problem. --Momentendz (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - The fact that Tom Van Flandern himself is considered notable does not make any individual piece of his silliness notable. This theory fails to meet the test in WP:SCIENCE at all (which I admit is still just proposed but provides a useful baseline for cases like this one): It neither has achieved recognition in the scientific mainstream nor has it garnered significant attention in general. So it is quote non-notable, and also is OR. --EMS | Talk21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This player is far below notability. Additionally, the article lacks verifiability. According to the article, this player has played for the national team. Unfortunately it does not even mention the sport in question, there are several "indoor football" disciplines. His club, Deportivo football club has a Wikipedia article which meets speedy deletion criteria, but on this occasion I used prod instead, so it could be used as a reference for this AfD nomination. Julius Sahara06:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also note that the prod template has been removed (without explanation) from his team's article, so I'll take that to AfD as well. ChrisTheDude08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only claim to notability (which actually comprises the article's only sentence as it stands) is that he plays for the "Indoor Roos". As far as I can tell, Australia does not field a team called the "Indoor Roos" - they do field a futsal team called the "Futsalroos", but I can find no record whatsoever of a player with this name turning out for that team - "futsalroos" "david collins" returns zero results on Google.... ChrisTheDude09:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article seems to violate WP:NOT (directory). If you collect all songs from a movie/TV show in a list, release it as an album, it's usually called a soundtrack, in which case it may be notable - but this is not a soundtrack, an no-one nowhere has written about this list. This article has a short introduction, then is just an alphabetical list. It serves no taxonomical or navigational purpose either from what I can tell. Deleteaspretty indiscriminate, and unworthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia. Ohconfucius08:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I thought it should be deleted when I first discovered it but then I grew to like it, but it's just as easy to look up the individual series articles for the show to find out what songs were sung. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This absolutely fails NOT#DIR. It is a loose association of items which have nothing in common other than that they are songs performed on a particular TV show. The individual items did not gain fame or notability by virtue of the association so they don't pass the "Nixon's enemies list" proviso. Finally, WP:LIST is a guideline, not a free pass for every list article. If an article fails an actual policy or is otherwise unacceptable, pointing to its compliance with WP:LIST does not save it. Otto471117:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no. The performance of a song on a TV show, when the songs share no other factor in common, is not enough of a commonality. The songs vary by genre, composer, lyricist, style, vocal range, tempo, key, etc. It is absurd to say that just because some TV person decided to sing a particular song on the air that the songs as a group become notable together. Otto471118:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is quite true that we disagree, because I tend to believe that items on an encyclopedic list should have something in common beyond coincidence. Otto471120:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say "accidentally." And the fact remains that songs do not become notable as a set by way of being performed on the same TV show. Otto471100:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 More school articles with no notability attached. This should be deleted quickly, why it needs to go to debate is beyond me - what use is a list of classes to anyone outside the school, and to be honest I fail to see what use this info would be to someone at the school. Its a poor list too - some of the entries are empty anyway and I doubt the teachers names used would appreciate having them plastered on the net! --PrincessBrat19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:47Z
Non-notable. With credits like "Medic #2," "Baseball Player," and "Janitor," I don't think he satisfies the criteria for notability. Maybe if he landed a big role in the future, but WP not a crystal ball. —OcatecirTalk08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete I think this really comes down to, "he was in two episodes of Veronica Mars." I'm pretty sure that doesn't cut it. Promising, but let's wait until he hits it bigger. --Brianyoumans12:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. My brother-in-law has about as many credits, and for the same things. He's a professional extra, and roles like "Baseball Player #1" and "Janitor" are what they get. I haven't written a Wikipedia article about him, either. RGTraynor19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:47Z
Procedural nomination as I noticed the Prod template had been removed without comment by the article's original creator. No !vote from myself at this time, I need to look into it..... ChrisTheDude08:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first result on Google for "northcote" "deportivo" is a forum thread (!), the first message of which says the following:
“
Official: Deportivo (northcote indoor soccer leage(sic)) FC Quick rundown:
Insportz Northcote on friday nights
me and a few mates.
in first season last year - second half of year - season 2 for 2006 we won the premiership in our first year as a bunch of 15 y.o playing 14-many 18 y.o.'s
”
which to me suggests that this club is clearly non-notable as per a million other AFDs on amateur indoor "hobbyist" teams. Note also zero Ghits for "northcote league" and "northcote super league". Therefore I now !vote Delete. I'm also nominating the club's "stadium", the rather unconvincingly named Estadio Northchetti (which again produces no results on Google) and !vote to delete on that one too..... ChrisTheDude08:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also find as a rule of thumb that any article in which the creator has felt the need to put "this subject is notable because....." generally isn't.... ChrisTheDude09:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In support of the above: the author of the wiki article and poster in the forum thread referenced above (under the handle: dem12345) was subsequently banned from that forum. Responses to his post criticize him for posting a thread in that forum about a non-notable team. Source: http://www.melbournevictory.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27539 This confirms proposal to delete. Gregorytopov17:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the team as (at best) a very minor-league team. They aren't in the A-League, which is the top league in these parts, and what little indication there is of the level at which they do play suggests that it's a local-league affair. As full disclosure, I previously Speedied the team and was questioned over it, which may explain the claims that the team is "very notable" in this version of the article. I see no particular reason why the stadium should be kept, although there may be something more significant which goes on there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an10:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, please let this stay. I've added a real valuable source at the end of ext.source section. This is a real team and league, forget the bit about "bunch of mates" that was when we were wiki virgins. Please allow it, really means a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dozzaddemar (talk • contribs) 10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I can understand that you're keen to have this page on here, but WP has a whole bunch of policies which articles need to satisfy, the main ones being Verifiability and Notability, neither of which your team seems to meet (or be able to meet). I'm sure you understand that these policies are there for a reason i.e. if we didn't have them the encyclopedia would drown in articles on everybody's garage bands, kids, pets, school projects, etc etc. I seem to recall a recent AfD discussion mentioning that there were something like 5000 indoor soccer teams active in the UK alone - can you imagine the effect on WP if we let every such team, not just in the UK but in the whole soccer-playing world, have an article.....? ChrisTheDude10:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources cited at the bottom of the Deportivo page (there was a third, but it was a link to the article on the stadium which is bundled with this one for AfD purposes) consist of a series of forum posts and a directory entry proving that the club exists. We can thus be reasonably sure that it's not a hoax (although the flagicons of some of the players still seem unusual). We cannot, however, be sure of the notability of the team. BigHaz - Schreit mich an10:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, look, i understand what all of you guys are saying. And yes, i understand that you guys now know the team and league exists. This really means a lot to a lot of people. You have no idea.
1.) regarding the picture, it is copyrighted for 7 years, under the Australian copyright act that any picture produced in Australia is of automatic copyright for 7 years, so please dont insult me on that.
2.) Ok, can we please reach an agreement, I havn't been lieing about anything here at all. The only semi-lie ive/weve told is the on eregarding estadio Northcetti. The place is actually (as im sure you all know) "Insportz Northcote" and we just made up the northcetti for fun. ill remove that now, and replace it with Insports Northcote - and Wont make a wiki for that. Please let this stay, it does no harm, really. It is a serious and yes, notable thing. Im not sure where you guys are from but if you were from Melbourne you would be aware - although, if you were a football fan (as that also applies to any league in the world)
Please reconsider.
Kind Regards
Dozzaddemar
You still need to address the failure of the article (as it stands) to meet the requirements of WP:N and especially WP:V. Your argument seems to hinge on the team being "big in Melbourne" - presumably if this is the case then you can cite coverage it has received in Melbourne newspapers, which would go a long way to satisfying WP:VChrisTheDude12:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You see, this is my problem, as you can probably guess i've exumed all internet resources. When i say big i dont mean everyone in the state knows, but to the football fraternity it is known. Local community newspapers do not publish their articles on the net. which leads me to my second point - you guys rely too much on the internet. Not all sources are internet. Is there a way for me to take a photo of my medal, then scan it on and imageshack it to be viewed. Note: i am being serious there, are there other ways of providing sources other than pre-made url links. i will take the photo if it means you'll allow the deportivo wiki in.
Regards
D.D.
You may provide citations that are not on the Internet, as long as they can be found elsewhere. What's most important is that they show that the subject meets the requirements listed previously. --Maxamegalon200015:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A photograph of a medal is not a reliable source, you need to cite coverage which the subject has received from independent third parties as per WP:N which reads:
“
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability
Delete Not notable. It's one team of many, from one location of many, from one city of many. One of the referenced websites lists nearly 20 sports centers in the Melbourne area, and this appears to be a team from a league at only one of those locations. Gregorytopov 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Further comment: The user who posted the article is Domenic Demaria, one of the players on the team. He is a 15 year old who posts in forums at football.co.uk, see all his posts here: http://forum.football.co.uk/search.php?search_id=1019827224&start=25 - which includes a post that mentions his age. With team members identified with names like "Billy" and opponents like "Jacob's Team", it seems clear this is just a local team composed of 15 year old amateurs at best. Claims in a forum post about the team being the subject of a Sportsnet article seem unverifiable and fabricated. The evidence points strongly to a non-notable amateur team like thousands worldwide, and a vanity article from the author about his teenager friends. To use the author's own words: "a bunch of 15 y.o playing 14-many 18 y.o.'s" Gregorytopov17:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if the most notable thing about this club is that it owns a medal of some kind then it's not worth including. Qwghlm17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Creator's repeated and exhaustive arguments boil down to nothing much; no matter how important he claims this team is, if he can't provide any sources at all (never mind verifiable or credible ones), then we're talking, as others have said, of a pickup duffers' league at best. Even amateur leagues get some major press coverage, if they're significant enough. This hasn't, so it isn't. Ravenswing19:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about this, everyone can go and get effed. This is fukn wiki for gods sakes. You guys sit on this computer all day long, go to hell. Wiki is shit, i cant even site it in a bibliography at school it is seen that much as a joke. You guys are no better than a bunch of forum mods, who sit on their computer all day. Delete it if you want, you guys are morons, who sit on a computer all day, trying to improve shit wiki. Wiki is a joke, Do you guys know how many wiki play ons there are, you are jokes. go back to wikiland, and stop trying to improve wiki, its a laughing stock - all over the world.
Comment: Wikipedia is materially improved every time someone with a chip on his shoulder gets into a hissy fit, the moment he finds that policies apply to him too, and takes a hike. Editors who can handle the principle that their work is subject to quality standards and editing are assets. As with any other contributor, it's up to you which you wish to be. Ravenswing14:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the A7, and definitely as above I am a 'delete', but can't see any evidence for G4 (unless I'm missing something, which is quite possible!) - fchd13:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:48Z
Keep but this article needs attention from somebody who knows Japanese. Most corroborating sources appear to be in that language. They do have an Allmusic entry, though I'm not sure that satisfies WP:N. ObtuseAngle16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no actual content on this article worthy of its own article. Even if it were to be updated to meed wiki formatting standards, the page would not be purposeful. Jtg92017:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iff cleaned up by the end of this AFD. This band may merit an article per the sources above if it is cleaned up. I'll take a swing at it now ... -- Black Falcon20:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have significantly changed the article. I removed all of the tracklists that cluttered the page and added a half-detailed history section for the band. I have left the cleanup tags on the page so that further improvements can be made by someone more knowledgeable and/or interested in the subject, but think it qualifies for inclusion at this point. -- Black Falcon21:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable band, of which the opening sentence is "Andrew Skeen was formed by five teenagers in early March 2007". Due to the length and the claimed notability I am bringing this article to Articles for Deletion rather than requesting a speedy delete. Sam Blacketer10:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have just discovered this is a vandalised version: Andrew Skeen is actually a notable Indian Army Officer who died in 1935. I have reverted to the correct version, can an admin please close this debate? Sam Blacketer 10:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Revived as the article now created elsewhere. Sam Blacketer10:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am very sorry, I attmpted to change the real article about Andrew Skeen, but I promise you that there is a new band with this name as a title, it is just so recent that they have no reliable information on the internet to proove its whereabouts and existance, but I know it exists, so please give me a chance to find some reliable information, by the way, I hope this is the respective page, lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjack114 (talk • contribs)
Not to sound imposing, but from the time of the AFD listing, you have five, maybe six days. In this time, you need to prove, through the use of several reliable, third party sources (such as books and newspaper articles), that the information in the article is correct. If this cannot be done, the article will be seen as not meeting the Wikipedia:Attribution core policy and the Wikipedia:Notability (music) nitability inclusion guideline, and will most likely be deleted. -- saberwyn11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"no reliable information on the internet to proove its whereabouts and existance" - the article's own creator seems to have pretty succinctly put the case for this article to be deleted. "I promise you it exists" isn't exactly a reliable source.... ChrisTheDude11:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bury at a crossroads at midnight, and sow the earth with salt. Some teenage garage band founded just this week, and already they have "former" members? And what's an "unofficial" band anyway? Violates WP:V, WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:BULLSHIT, come to that. Ravenswing19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
According to the BBC, Afghanistan has only one hip-hop/rap star, DJ Besho. All three sources for this article are about him, in either a major or minor way. Suggest that someone who is inclined towards this subject use the sources to write an article about the artist, as he appears to be more notable than the genre at this point in time. Following this, write a very short section for Music of Afghanistan (very short as per BBC, there is only one star at this time). Link DJ Besho to the MoA article in this section. -- saberwyn11:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't merge It appears that there is indeed an Afghan HipHop scene which meets WP:V, is distinctive, and not simply limited to one high profile rapper. Mostlyharmless07:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeeporMerge and agree that DJ Besho would be a good article subject based on the existing sources. I'll add a stub for him once the decision on this page is finalized. JavaTenor23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mostlyharmless - if not, merge with music of Afghanistan. Redirecting a genre to a musician article does not make sense to me, and is unwise if more Afghan rappers gain fame. 96T18:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment, I wonder if this is not a hoax, I cannot imagine a town of 5000 in Ireland that has only two pubs, unless they are the size of a small soccer stadium AlfPhotoman11:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'll bookmark this in case I ever need a job... a new pup in an Irish town of 5000 that has only two is surely huge business AlfPhotoman16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn in light of recent improvements to the article. It still needs work and more reliable sources, however. Ardent†alk∈18:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not pass WP:A "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This is a hotly debated subject, and developers of the game have both denied and confirmed certain aspects of the quoted article without further specification. This speculation is not encyclopaedic in the least. Mikkelm10:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is nothing exceptional in this subject, this is only a videogame, not "historical events, politically charged issues, and biographies of living people". Moreover, the development of this product was widely announced months ago, and devs have partially confirmed the contents of this article. The only reason they cant confirm it completely, are commercial agreements they have with magazines, and I dont think wikipedia is bound to respect agreements between third parties. The source, The Inquirer, is reputable, and has revealed other "scoops" in the field of videogames before. I think the notice {{Future Game}} its enough to warn readers that the informations in the article are not certain--Twilight11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reasons a subject might fail WP:V are irrelevant. That it does is relevant. If all you have for factual information are forum posts and whispered back alley conversations, the subject isn't encyclopedic; it isn't as if prizes are being given out to the First Creators of Articles. Come on back when the game satisfies the requirements of WP:V. RGTraynor19:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete As was pointed out, parts of this article have been denied by developers. The fact that unknown parts of what the article presents as facts have been confirmed while other unknown parts of it have been denied makes it just too speculative. When exact confirmation and details are available, this article will have merit, but until then I really don't see how it belongs on Wikipedia when part of the article is known to be false. I'd vote for a rewording, but it's impossible to identify the inaccurate parts yet. 85.81.127.2111:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no official statement by Arenanet denying parts of that article. Only informal posts on fansite forums. It is even possibile that those forum post are inaccurate and actually all the informations provided by The inquirer are true. I repeat, we are not bound to provide official informations only, and if there is a leak like this, wikipedia must report it, IMHO. --Twilight12:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These "informal" posts have been by a community manager and have long been established as a legitimate channel for official information. Certainly more legitimate than an "anonymous source" in a questionable article. You used these "informal" posts yourself to justify your Keep, so I believe that makes it hypocritical to question the validity of the same posts to challenge a Delete. Wikipedia must certainly not "report" anything. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news portal or general information dump. Even when discarding the posts made by developers, this is nothing but an unsubstantiated rumour, and creating a Wikipedia article based solely on rumour or speculation is a big no-no. Mikkelm12:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is no rumor, this is a source written by a professional journalist, who puts his reputation and the reputation of his magazine in his article. Denying relevance of alternative sources of information, you are basically giving Arenanet the monopoly of news about its products. Arenanet can decide what can be published on wikipedia and what cannot, simply informally denying or not confirming them. This is censorship. --Twilight16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are several things wrong with using this article as a source. It starts out by saying that "NCSoft has announced the development and release dates for regular annual expansion of Guild Wars universe", when NCSoft has in fact made no such announcement. The entire premise of the article is false. Beyond that, the grammar of the article lends no credibility to the author's supposed journalistic professionalism. I am all for trusting trustworthy sources, but The Inquirer's track record inspires little confidence that they belong in this group, and I do not believe that a blanket claim like "trustworthy source" can be applied here. This has nothing to do with censorship. It's simply not encyclopaedic. 85.81.127.2117:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the provision that this content be merged if the expansion is named different. While it's certainly possible that this could be false, if it were false information, that itself might be worth including in the future article. In fact, given the denial mentioned above, that alone makes it worth including in my book. If there's an article for Guild Wars expansions in general though, I could support a merge there. FrozenPurpleCube17:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It may be true, but I think it'd be nice to at least wait until ArenaNet makes an official announcement on it or else this could end up being just another false alarm like the Guild Wars: Utopia article was... --Rambutaan04:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirecttoGuild Wars. Hardly any information for a stand alone article at this time. Announcements from the game maker are not necessarily the most important announcements, but as of this moment the sole source is an online gossip 'zine. If these details were announced in the GDC, there should be wider coverage from other reliable sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri07:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Im fine with the redirect: at least informations will be reported, and when new sources will be available, we will be easily able to rexpand it into a stand-alone article. --Twilight08:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:52Z
Delete as unWP:Attributable at this point in time. Recreateif and only if sourced and verifiable information can be provided regarding the release and contents of the game. -- saberwyn11:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a good search gets a few results from relatively reliable gaming sources; however, Gamespy says release has been canceled. I have no concept of game notability but it strikes me that canceled games probably aren't notable. grenグレン12:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cleanup by Dread Lord CyberSkull. The comments to "delete" no longer seem applicable: the article has been sourced (meets WP:A), the game has been released in Europe (it just hasn't arrived in the US yet), it hasn't been cancelled (just one version of three), and it certainly exists. -- Black Falcon07:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is a real game. It was released in Europe about 2 years ago, and is coming out for the Wii this year. It's just that games released only in Europe (or only in Australia) don't get much press in North America. TJ Spyke00:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
'Speedy delete, I won't do it right now... but any other admin can see that it makes no real assertion of notability. grenグレン12:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:53Z
Unverifiable biography, possibly hoax. No sources for claims to notability are given, and among the 25 Google hits for Owen Ingraham[12] are none that appear to be about the subject of this article. Article speedied twice, prod removed, so now an AfD to decide this once and for all. Basically, fails WP:V. Fram11:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No attribution for his "breakthrough discoveries on a topic that had puzzled psychologists for years." Plus, a Google search of [Owen Ingraham "acute manic depression"] gets no hits, even though that is his supposed area of expertise and fame. Vicjm15:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A youngish academic with no real assertion of notability and no references to back up the claims that are there. -- Necrothesp19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:54Z
The best I can tell is that this is a very narrow piece of original research. While maybe neutral commentary on a verse would be a good thing, an article that's a response to a someone's interpretation of a verse that has no article is problematic. grenグレン12:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 00:54Z
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is no confirmation on this album, no title, no release date, no record label, no tracklist, no producer informaion. The article has no details and the infobox contains non-free images in the chronology section. No reason for this page's existence until there is at least some kind of announcement made or a working title. - eo13:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced crystal balling. Why do people insist on creating these sorts of articles when there isn't even a title announced? 23skidoo14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they think there's some sort of cosmic karmic prize awarded to The First Person Who Writes An Article About This Supremely Important Subject. Oh, and delete per nom. RGTraynor19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recording new material is Philip Oakey's aspiration for the group this year and is not a certainty. Almost certainly nothing released before 2008 and may not even be in the form of a traditional studio album at all. Article is inaccurate and unhelpful speculation. Delete asp.Andi06419:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:02Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia is not the place for this sort of material. Last June, someone tagged this to be transwikied to Wikibooks, but the article has remained as status quo. If no one wants to transwiki or do anything with this, then it should simply be deleted.--Aude (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as how-to guide Parts of the article might be appropriate for merger into Soap, but the overall theme of the article is a how-to guide on making soap which violates the WP:NOT policy against how-to guides and instruction manuals. I'd say delete and, if necessary, merge things like an explanation of how soap works into SoaporSoapmaking or another appropriate article. Dugwiki18:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold On! I saw we take this information and move it somewhere better before deleting it from the main Wikipedia, therefore, I am saying temporary keep. Guroadrunner21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One way to "hold on" would be to copy the article to your user space as a draft. That way the actual text of the article is preserved for you or other people to tinker with, but it won't appear in the article space itself. Dugwiki21:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment:Just left a message on the user's page because I am not sure they are completely familiar with how Wikipedia works, we should leave this open until at least that person can have a say. And perhaps learn more about the Wiki in the process.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 04:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did create this page but when i created it it was merely a sentence long it was sysplace who completely rewrote feel free to delete it if you think that is appropriate i am ndifferent on the matter. (sorry about the bad grammer i wrote tis in a rush) --Death Star III00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Here's the thing, if this list was done and perfect, I'd see no reason to delete it. However, it is only about 20 to 40% complete, and the only user who seems active it working on it is User:Bovineboy2008. Now, I don't want to just destory all of the hard work he's done, but I also don't want him to waste anymore time on a list that we may not even want. As it stands, it's just an inferior shoot-off of List of GameCube games which, at this pace, won't be done until the end of the year. Also, I don't like encouraging more than one list for a console, as it's hard enough to keep just one up to date. So I think we should go ahead and either kill it or save it, but not let it dangle in this semi-finished state. SeizureDog15:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - The list seems redundant at best. Though I must say, incompleteness (unless it can never be complete) isn't a good reason to delete something as the nature of the wiki encourages incomplete entries to be completed later when other editors come upon an article.A mcmurray (talk • contribs) 15:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think that we should get more people to work on it, or else it won't be done until next Christmas. If we can't get more people to work on it, then delete it or use it to help with the other list if it needs help. --Austinsimcox15:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So, it is only being worked on by one user, and he'll take a while to complete it? So what? That's not grounds for deletion. The organizational information it offers is reasonable, see also prior discussion on the Playstation lists. If you're really troubled by it being a separate list, talk to the user about merging the information to the List of Gamecube games or working on it in his/her userspace. FrozenPurpleCube17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incompleteness is a reason for cleanup, but not usually a reason for deletion. So unless there's another problem with the article, I'd say keep and hopefully interested editors will get it updated. Dugwiki18:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incompleteness isn't a reason to delete, but the list is somewhat redundant, and List of GameCube games contains far more information. I'm undecided as to whether the chronological format is of use; I think there's an argument to be made. But I think this list should be expanded with some of the other's information (developer, publisher) in order to make it more useful, or else the dates should be merged to the other list (which contains years, but not exact dates, of release currently). Hm... wonder whether there's a way to make a table sortable by selected header... Shimeru19:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if we had code for stuff like this. Are we capable of making tables where we can do things like "Sort by title/year/company" etc? Or what exactly do you mean.--SeizureDog14:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we have code that does that and makes it quite easy to incorporate. The example listed above by SubSeven is a good example of how it works. Arkyan19:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can also support above merge The above merge using a sortable table sounds pretty reasonable. I'd support that or keeping, either one. Dugwiki22:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keepormerge to a sortable table, since incompleteness is not a deletion criterion; it clearly has narrow enough scope to be maintainable. — brighterorange (talk)05:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no deadline to complete articles. That being said, I believe a merge to List of GameCube games and converting that into a sortable table (if I remember correctly, class="sortable prettytable") is appropriate. Two additional suggestions: replace "Year" in List of GameCube games with "Date" (in the format [[YYYY-MM-DD]] and eliminate sorting by letter (essentially a prerequisite for a sortable table). -- Black Falcon07:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete - The attendance of Neturei Karta at the conference may be notable, not every participant is notable. Avi06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep First I'd just like to say: Wow, Avi, you put so much work into it sourcing and are now nominating it/. you are a better person than I am. That said, weak keep Weiss is the head spokesperson it seems for his part of Neuterei Karta and has been the subject of a variety of articles such as the NYT piece which is cited in the article (the piece I think focused on Weiss. I'll look it up later to make sure)). JoshuaZ07:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you . I am putting work in, for as long as it is in wiki, it is a Bio, and must have extra care taken per WP:BLP, but really do not think HE is notable. The article is 95% about the visit, not the person, so that is a failure of notability for the person, in my opinion. -- Avi07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And they are all about the VISIT, not the MAN. See my initial comment above. While the attendance may be notable, that does not mean the individual participants are. Also, as a matter of procedure, this is not a "Speedy" keep, per se. You may mean "Strong" keep. -- Avi12:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The attendance at the conference are notable, but the individuals are not. Most of the "citations" which are positive toward Mr. Weiss are rife with misrepresentations. From his title as Rabbi, which is not supported by any indicia of scholarship or ordination, to the extent of his support, Mr. Weiss and six or seven of his cronies have sucked many into their delusional world where they are believed to somehow espouse the true "Jewish voice." To the extent that this article is not written like others concerning eccentrics like the Joshua Norton, the self-styled emperor of the United States, or David Koresh, a self-proclaimed Messiah, this article is, to be perfectly frank, silly, irrelevant, and concerns a non-notable individual who was remarkably successful in convincing non Jews that he is somehow notable in the Jewish world. Bravo. Good Show. 67.81.158.1315:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC) — 67.81.158.13 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete This is purely a fact based issue. Mr. Weiss is not notable. He is not a Rabbi. He claims to represent an already splintered group of Neturei Karta followers. He actually claims to have HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of SUPPORTERS, even though he has about seven. His ideas are just a ruse to justify the donations he recieved from Arafat and continues to recieve from other avowed terrorists. He claims to lecture in a school which does not exist. Frankly, every thing stated in this article is untrue, save the fact he was condemned by the entire Jewish world--whether religious or non-religious, Zionist, or non-Zionist. It is made by an imposter who has not made a single notable achievement in his entire life except fool a non Jews like bsnowball who knows absolutely nothing about what he really is about and likes him only for political reasons (even though he has never and will never achieve anything of significance because he is completely out of his mind!). How this could have been going on for so long is beyond me. I strongly advocate this stain on Wikipedia's standards and firmly hope it is removed speedily. DavidCharlesII15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)— DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
David, we know you don't like the man and don't like what he stands for. Neither do I. That doesn't alter whether or not we should have an article on him. JoshuaZ15:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but this has nothing to do with whether I like him or not. There is nothing notable about Mr. Weiss. He is assumed to be notable simply because he is a media hound and lied to appear notable. That's not notable. The only ones who are disputing his notability are those who don't know better, or, as in the past, have very strong anti-Israel political issues. DavidCharlesII15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and be civil. Whether he is a media hound and whether he has lied aren't relevant. Please actually read WP:BIO- what matters is the existence of multiple independent non-trivial reliable sources. And we seem to have that. JoshuaZ16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wow. This is really funny. You have Rabbi 67 and Rabbi David Charles attempting to add facts into this article to at least salvage it, and others who know nothing about the issues change it because it does not feel right--all while maintaining that the lies Mr. Weiss made are somehow sourced because they are in op-eds, while other op-eds are not "reliable." Hillarious. Mr. Weiss is a non-event, a nobody. No one ever heard of him. Everything about him in this article is untrue except for the fact that he was in Tehran and is banned from everything Jewish. I mean, come on, when do we start adding town idiots and town drunks to Wikipedia? Are they important, too? Rabbi 67 and David Charles deserve commendation for what they have tried to do. I think this is a better route. Take this piece of nonsense out of wikipedia. Unless, of course, you write an article about a flat Earth, making it sound like its true--based on sources from the 14th century. Its funny, but come on, its not an encyclopedia. — SuperCharedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment Does the MAN meet the standards, or does the MEETING meet the standards -- they are two different things! -- Avi15:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense meant, just trying to clarify what I beleive is a misconception. Care to explain why you believe the man is notable? -- Avi15:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From a strictly neutral basis, he has been the subject of several non-trivial publications by reliable sources. Now, whether or not the article appropriately reflects his notability is something different and I'm not sure what the answer for that is. Leebo8615:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, I am curious as to the worthiness of the sources which give the appearance of Mr. Weiss's notablity. Seeing as no one ever heard of him in the Jewish world, it is harldy likely that he is notable, aside from the lies he tells the press, which were discussed both here and on the discussion boards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidCharlesII (talk • contribs)
David, he gets major press coverage. Whether he does that by lying to the press or not isn't that relevant. What matters is whether he passes WP:BIO. JoshuaZ15:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes him notable? Something HE did? Hardly. The meeting is may be significant in the eyes of some, but it does not make him noteworthy. Do you know everyone who fought in the Civil war? Let's get ALL the names now. SuperCharedi16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does not focus on Weiss. We can have an article on him saying that there was an NYU article which quoted Weiss who explained why he and six others decided to meet someone who decided he will go to Tehran. Yay. That's not notable. 67.81.158.1316:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has a large amount of material on Weiss and quotes from him extensively. For example, it includes this paragraph『Rabbi Weiss, 54, grew up in the Orthodox neighborhood of Borough Park, Brooklyn, the son of Hungarians who fled Eastern Europe before Hitler’s troops closed its borders to Jews. He married 18 years ago and has six children. The family moved to Monsey seven years ago, solidifying Neturei Karta’s presence in the town.』among others. JoshuaZ16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds incredibly trivial. His connection with the Tehran conference was what was important. While we are at it, you might have a point. An old lady was quoted today in NYT--Gertrude Rothman--she is 87, lives in the Bronx, likes to shop at the store across the block. She went there to buy salmon. she was wearing a pink blouse. Oh yeah, the subject of the article was about a robbery next door. 67.81.158.1318:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, this is a) more info than that, b) the example paragraph is not the only one about him c) as already observed, there are other sources as well, such as the Fox News sources. JoshuaZ19:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the point is not what he is noted for (and therefore notable) but THAT he is noted. After extensive sourcing of this article this should be clear to all AlfPhotoman16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I provided most of the sources, and yet I still, or more likely because of that, feel that he is not notable, (I nominated it ;) ) as all the sources are really about the event and not the man. -- Avi17:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sincerely I was hitting the sack in want of hitting the donkey. You more than anyone else should know that there is a certain amount of notability that we can attribute to the subject ... even if -- and here I agree with you -- the event was way more notable than the subject AlfPhotoman17:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT Please check Avi's somewhat wild claims about the article & his input. The article does mention other facts, a conference in Durban 5 years ago etc. Also Ari has been adding to this disproportion by adding more stuff about the conference. Go figure. ⇒ bsnowball17:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely request you review the policy of assuming good faith, bsnow. The reason for my hours of work on this article, is, as I clearly stated above, that it is a biography of a living person, so any remotely controversial statement (such as the agudah and Edah statements) MUST be sourced. I went through the opening of the article, sentence by sentence, and searched for reliable sources to support the text, with the intent of removing any statement that was unsupported, per WP:BLP. COme to think of it, you should review WP:BLP, WP:ATT, and {{WP:CIVIL]] while you are at it, I am afraid. I would say that if everyone here paid as much attention to wiki policies as they do to personal political preference (how's THAT for alliteration ), we would all be better off. I know better than to ask for an apology from you, but you really need to take a step back and make sure you are not letting persoanl points-of-view overwhelm your ability to edit wiki in accordance with its rules. -- Avi18:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a balanced, well-sourced article which makes a solid case for Weiss' notability. And notability is the only issue which falls under our purview. I am militantly disinterested, as I hope the closing admin will be, in whether Weiss is "entitled" to be called a rabbi, the popularity (or lack thereof) of his organization or the degree to which he is obviously loathed by a faction here on Wikipedia. It does strike me as odd that so many folk know so much about someone they are claiming is non-notable, but ultimately, it's well to remember this: Wikipedia is not written to personally please you. RGTraynor18:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it to personally please you. The lies throughout the papers which are not about him but his organization are not so notable as to justify an entry in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.158.13 (talk • contribs)
Well, frankly, were I an anonymous IP with no other edits on Wikipedia save for this discussion, I wouldn't myself presume to preach on what justifies an entry here or not. For my own part, I'm still bemused that so many people seem to know so much about a fellow they then go on to claim is non-notable. If that's really so, from what sources did you learn so much? RGTraynor19:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I appreciate that you are bemused. I find it amusing that my history shows that I have made so few edits. I made hundreds. And I can preach on what makes fundamental sense. I would gladly prepare a beautiful article on Gertrude Rothman, a sweet, bubbly 87 year old lade who was quoted in the NYT. She likes fish, especially trout, believes that kids are not the way they used to be, and likes to shop in a stor across the street from her house. She lives in the Bronx. Even though she was quoted in the broader context of a burglarly next door, I think she is noteworthy. She was quoted in the Post, too, after all. Weiss is no less. Naturally, it is somewhat surprising that people know "so" much about him. Like the fact he was excomunnicated by every Jewish faction--Zionist or or anti-Zionist. Or that he lies about the extent of his support (a fact several anti semites refuse to allow in the article), claiming he has Hundreds of Thousands of followers, when, in fact, he has less than a dozen. But this is what happens when someone goes out in the open, pandering to the media, and calling himself Rabbi (demanding the title, actually, he did that on Radio), and proclaiming himself to be the true voice of Judaism. Before proclomations are made, one must find out who on Earth this eccentric is. If this article was written about an eccentric, Like Joshua Norton, for example, I would not have a problem with it. But to make him sound any more defies logic, common sense, and most significantly for wikipeida, the facts. The reality is that we don't write articles about mongrels on the street who are quoted on the news. We don't write articles about town drunks who people may know about. We certainly need not write an article about someone whose only significance is that he claims to lead a organization which he does not. Neturei Karta was split up between Rabbi Blau's followers. Weiss, at best, follows the view of one of those followers. Because he was excomunnicated by all, how could he be regarded as legit? How could this not be qualified in the article about him? Because all he is doing is talking about this follower's orgniazation, and its efforts in America to pander with the axis of Evil, we can quote it within the broader scope of what he's talking about. But there is no need to write about its insignificant, deranged messenger.67.81.158.1319:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Mr. Weiss would probably fall under Creative professionals: scientists, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals.
This would mean he would have to be:
The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
The person is regarded as an important figure or significant expert by peers.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or idea.
The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of multiple independent works, reviews, or documentaries.
The person or their work has been widely cited by authors, or is the basis for respected curriculum.
The person's work is or has been displayed in notable museums or exhibitions, or as a recognised monument.
Mr. Weiss does not fall under this category. Furthermore, "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable." Most of the coverage on him is trivial, incidental coverage. moreover, there is little content to add aside from his date of birth, the amount of children he has and what he claims. Everything is else is completely made up. The problem is that anti semites refuse to allow in the sources that prove this. Believe me, many have tried to clean up this cesspool of lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.158.13 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 March 2007
Quite. I'm waiting for that myself, amidst the blizzard of straw man arguments, loaded statements, insults and other irrelevancies. Frankly, there have been a number of hugely contested Judaism-related AfDs lately, and I can't be the only editor weary to death to the degree to which Wikipedia policies are plowed under the torrent of ideological squabbling boiling down to nothing more pertinent than "We hate this subject so it needs to be deleted." Great, so a bunch of you regard this guy as a nutcase and a traitor to Judaism and fervently wish the world ignored his existence; we get it. So stipulated; either source your assertions that he's a con man or move on. RGTraynor20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about loaded statements, straw man arguments and insults!!! I apologize if my arguments are too much for you. He said on many occassions that he has hundreds of thousands of followers. He does not even have a hundred. He's a con man. 67.81.158.1320:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And his number of followers has nothing to do with whether he meets WP:BIO or not. What matters is sourcing, now can you explain why given the sourcing he does not meet WP:BIO?JoshuaZ20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On form, I doubt he will; I'm getting the strong impression this is far less about verifiable fact than about propaganda. Beyond that, the article makes no mention of "hundreds of thousands," nor does the NK article (which has been written in a demonizing, jeering format which wouldn't be supported in the Nazi, KKK or Aryan Nations articles). RGTraynor20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC) *comment removed due to WP:BLP concerns*[reply]
Strong Keep Prominence in the news is prominence. The article makes no claims that he is more than he is, a person who made a perverse speech at a widely observed international gathering--a speech which attracted widespread notice. I do not attempt to tell whether the attempt to delete this article is due to the true but erroneous belief that this coverage did not occur, to the wish that it had not occurred, or to the view that WP should try to pretend such events are nonnotable in order to avoid encouraging them. It is sometimes hard to distingish between genuine ignorance and bias. .DGG01:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that this individual is notable under a fair reading of WP:BIO and notability is clearly backed by adequate attribution. Whether or not what he says is true or good or beautiful is completely irrelevant to his notability. End of story. --Shirahadasha01:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ignoring the fact that you are comparing this man to animals, it's not an adequate analogy. He has had coverage that focused on him alone. That qualifies him for passing WP:BIO. Leebot|c13:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Leebo you are obviously not following my point. I am comparing the content of articles. The fact that space dogs have had "coverage" focused on them does not make them "different" to other ordinary, non-notable, dogs. A dog is a dog is a dog. And a non-entity is a non-entity is a non-entity. One cannot lose site of reality due to misapplication of Wikipedia rules. IZAK12:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At what point do you draw the line between saying someone is notable on their own or just one of the participants in something notable? Is a professional athlete notable outside of their team? Many are not, but they still get individual coverage and thus pass WP:BIO. It can't be a subjective question. LeeboT/C12:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm sure it's possible for a dog to be notable enough to have its own article. However, the notability guidelines for a dog would surely not be identical to those of a man, so I don't think there's any use in comparing the two. If the subject has had articles that focused on him, then he passes the guidelines. LeeboT/C12:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Avi. There is a world of difference between and article about a person and an article that mentions a person. While Weiss has been mentioned in the news there is not coverage of him as a person. A while ago there was an someone who tried to claim a person had media coverage from the line "the writer of this opinion piece is...". That simply doesn't cut it. As Weiss was not the main subject of any of the articles the author does not engage in the same level of fact checking. Jon51314:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:BIO explicitly states: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." This is precisely what we've done in the article. Nowhere does that policy ask for articles solely about the person, so this line of argument is utterly irrelevant. ⇒ bsnowball16:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The primary criterion for notability, per WP:BIO, is "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." In WP:BIOTOPIC referes to the PERSON. In this article, all of the notability is in reference to the EVENT. As I said when I nominated this for deletion, the EVENT may well be, and in my opinion, IS notable. But NOT Mr. Weiss. None of these sources are about HIM outside of the EVENT. It really is not that difficult of a differentiation, in my opinion. What about it do you find incorrect? -- Avi16:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part where you link, inaccurately, the sum total of Weiss' notability with said event, and the inference that someone isn't notable outside the setting for his or her notoriety. Few people could pass WP:BIO under that premise. RGTraynor17:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there exist articles that should not be in the encyclopedia is not a blanket license for other such articles. On the point whether Weiss is notable outside of the event, I guess we will agree to disagree and let the AfD run its course. Thanks for the reply. -- Avi18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People become notable from what they do, and what events they participate in. He has become notable by participating in the conferences, and by delivering the speech he gave there. This makes him notable, and it is shutting one's eyes to reality that make it possible to think otherwise. He if had merely gone to the concert and said nothing, and if no articles had been written centered around his activities there, then there would be a case. (I think that even then there would have been coverage about him a an individual, because the very fact of someone from his community going there was N, and recognized so in news coverage even before the speech was given.--and that would have made him notable. But after the delivery of the speech, probably every newspaper in the world had an article focused on him--the items given are a very small selection. Articles focused on his individual contribution to the meeting, not just about the meeting. We do not make it less Notable by eliminating the article--what we do, is make ourself unreliable as a source for major newsworthy figures of our own time.
There is a possible argument that those newsworthy because of extensive tabloid coverage of trivial events do not merit an article. This was not a trivial event. DGG23:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have bad news. Mr. Weiss and his seven followers have been banned by Neturei Karta itself. See Here. http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/nkcherem.jpg. This puts the already onerous problem about writing that Mr. Weiss is an adherent of Neturei Karta (I always tried to be factually correct and maintained that he CLAIMS to be an adherent of Neturei Karta) but also begs the question as to whether he should be put on the NK article. It would appear that all we can write about him is his name, his age, the amount of his children he has, his claim he is a member of NK, and the ban NK, and the rest of the anti-Zionist and Zionist world imposed on him and his seven followers. Everyone in the know, from the Agudah to the NK calls him a liar, a delusional, a fox in sheep's clothing, etc. He clearly lied to the media. Notable? DavidCharlesII15:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the cheirem makes him MORE notable , I'm afraid. I'm still not sure that I would change my vote, and I won't, but for NK to put someone in cheirem for an anti-Zionist activity is pretty rare. -- Avi18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David, you just don't get it, do you? Whether or not Weiss is the real deal or a con man has not one single thing to do with this AfD. The only grounds for deletion would be on the basis of non-notability or lack of verification of the article's assertions. Avi is quite right; the more verifiable attention the world gives this fellow, the more notable he is. As it happens, under the Wikipedia article for cherem, the pronouncement against Weiss and his followers is one of the two specific incidents used as an example, and one of the only few attributed ones in recent centuries. That's beyond "pretty rare" and well into "nearly unprecedented." RGTraynor18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Rabbi David. Second, it shows that Mr. Weiss is not a spokesperson for NK. It also demonstrates that he lied to all the sources which form the basis of his notability. 67.81.158.13 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC) So basically you can write an article about how someone fooled the media the president of Iran for a while. I guess articles of that nature can be notable. 67.81.158.1319:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your identity, you could disclose the reason why you removed the discussion of sockpuppetry from David's user talk page. If you are not him, it's improper to remove comments from another user's talk page. LeeboT/C19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the only reason I have not entered into the article is that I have no reliable sources for it (yeshivaworld is not reliable; its a blog) and I cannot find the placard anywhere else. -- Avi19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and opposing suggestion to merge. From a strictly policy point, he meets WP:BIO. Sure, the information about the meeting is disproportionate to the rest of the article, but that's just a reason to expand other sections of the article. The sources are about him directly or feature him prominently (even if in relation to the meeting). -- Black Falcon07:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - indiscriminate list and directory seeking to capture every reference to a real person on a particular TV show. Thoroughly unencyclopedic. Otto471115:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is almost like trying to list all the proper nouns that have ever been used in a Seinfeld script. No real world context or analysis provided to demonstrate this is anything other than an collection of essentially unrelated names. Dugwiki18:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there no trivia Wiki? There really should be one. This is an unimportant topic, but the quality of the article is pretty high. It's a shame someone worked hard on this but there really is no appropriate place for this on Wikipedia. Mangojuicetalk16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One solution for interested editors is to move this article to their userspace. You can write user pages about anything you want, including things like this list. Dugwiki16:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, then deletetoUser:Kane5187, as s/he seems to be the single-largest contributor (it's a little hard to check given all the edits). If s/he does not wish to have it, it can be moved to another user's page or deleted per {{db-userreq}}. -- Black Falcon07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:11Z
This BAND meets Central Criterion: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. - SEE Television under Media. KTVI- Memorial for Sgt. Amanda Pinson (killed in Iraq- NATIONAL MEDIA ATTENTION) [KTVI] story including the memorial benefit including live performance from Seeing Seven. ON FOX 2 St. Louis NEWS CAST.
This BAND meets #3 - See Discussion.
This BAND meets #10- See Media -FREE FM/INTERNET RADIO
Delete Possible conflict of interest in a marginally notable field. It is not possible to have a page which is maintained solely by its subject. Wikipedia is not a music promotion site (they are plenty of those). --Daniel J. Leivick21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteself-promotional piece about a fairly un-notable local band. Light rotation on local (or internet radio) stations, "touring" (including publicity appearances) in a few minor and sub-minor mid-west locations doesn't count for very much towards WP:MUSIC in my book. Tons of Ghits, but almost all are for uses of the word "seeing" as in "witnessing". Article fails WP:RS. Ohconfucius02:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:12Z
Article created by user:Enitharmon Press about one of the authors that they publish. No third-party evidence of notability. (Most of the article is a copyvio from here but please do not use that as ground for deletion - we can assume permission to copy has been granted.) -- RHaworth15:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be a notable poet, certainly sufficiently notable to warrant an article. See BBC Radio 4 interview. He has 37 publications available at amazon.co.uk. See also here. There are more sources I could link. The article needs these sources including to comply with WP:ATT. If I have chance I will do so, but no promises, sorry! Jules197516:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have updated the article to refer to the sources I mentioned. The article could be vastly improved and doesn't appear to do this man proper justice. However, I don't have time to do that right now! I have just added in what I hope is enough to establish that this artcle is about a notable subject and should be kept. Jules197517:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I speedily deleted this as part of a batch of articles constituting adverts for Enitharmon Press. For some reason I didn't notice the AfD (all the others were either tagged for speedy deletion or prodded, which might explain it). I'll undelete it now. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment To be fair, the page has been written by Enitharmon Press. It also refers only to the subject's more recent works (i.e. the ones they publish!), not his entire works. Therefore it needs rewriting and expanding to be less like an advert, but certainly worth keeping in my view. I will put some suitable tags on. I may even get round to a rewrite "one day".Jules197510:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the subject of a volume is Gale's "Contemporary author" series, which i am about to add as a reference. this is a very solid 3rd part recognition of notability. I would be prepared to argue that any author with a vol. in that series --a standard resource in all libraries--is N. ( I added his University page--he is a lecturer, not a prof., though they use that courtesy title. I doubt he would be notable on that alone).DGG01:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's subject satisfies WP:BIO. If the article doesn't do him justice, it ought to be improved. I have added another snippet of information and another reference to the article (a finalist for 2006 Wales Book of the Year; winner not yet announced). -- Black Falcon07:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have further revised the article, adding a reference, removing in-text mentions of the publisher (could be seen as promotional), deleting another promotional sentence ("best of a consistently exploratory poet"), and a few other minor changes. See diff. -- Black Falcon07:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NOT for crystal balling. Unconfirmed, unsourced rumour. Microsoft may be weroking on a portable version of the XBox, but that's all there is to say for the moment: even the name is unconfirmed. Speedy contested, so up for AfD now. Fram16:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although if there is confirmation that Microsoft is working on this, it deserves mentioning somewhere. Recreate when there are verifiable sources, or keep and rewrite if there are already sources available. It could certainly do with a cleanup, what on Earth is with all the capitals? J Milburn16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per crystalballing, no definite sources (or at least any that definitively say that Microsoft is releasing this product), and poorly written article. There are a bunch of articles containing possible mock-ups of Xbox Portable concepts, but no official, straight-from-the-horse's-mouth confirmation that this product is something Microsoft is actively pursuing. TheLetterM16:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending some official references As above, sounds like speculation at the moment. Delete for now, but could be recreated if and when a more official source is produced for verification of information. Dugwiki18:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok. Sorry for the capital letters on every word on the article. I am just saying to merge this to the Xbox article because it is linked to the Xbox. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pendo 4 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Delete it now: I e-mailed Microsoft about the Xbox Portable and they said they have no plans. Microsoft DID say to me that they ARE working on a portable gaming system.Pendo 422:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:12Z
Appears to be a hoax, or a very non notable co-worker to a notable scientist. Google is revealing absolutely nothing, and though the original author came back, removing many of the tags, they failed to provide any sources. Delete unless notability (and existance) can be verified. J Milburn16:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HOAX. Google hits are rarely a good indicator of notability and much less so for truthfulness, but anyone who had cloned 30 human embryos would easily have 30,000 Ghits, whereas this has less than 30. -- Black Falcon07:59, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was RedirecttoSchool District 35 Langley et al. I suggest that elementary school articles with no real content or assertion of notability can be speedy-redirected to the parent school district, and even ones that don't yet exist can be preemptively redirected to the school district article. —Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:13Z
non notable elementary school stub in British Columbia; prod removed without discussion by ip address. I will also include two other basically similar B. C. elementary school stubs with the same history. Brianyoumans 16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Brianyoumans16:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also included here are A. I. Collinson Elementary School and Aberdeen Elementary School. I have not been able to find anything notable about any of these schools online, Note: one of them says on its website that it has received awards from the Canadian Health, Physical Education, and Dance Council (or something like that), but if you look up the organization and its awards, they give out hundreds of such awards each year in each province - it looks like most of the local schools get them every year. --Brianyoumans16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of articles about elementary schools, many of them smaller than this one. There are 513 pages in the Category:Elementary schools in British Columbia. I think the precedent has been that school articles are notable enough to be kept. GhostPirate16:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'd change my mind if someone made it more than a stub. It's been a stub looking almost exactly as it does now since it was created about 10 months ago, presenting nothing more than directory information. Why disappoint readers? Noroton17:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arrrrgh! Why do any school articles need to be in this encyclopedia? Unless they are notable for one reason or another they shouldnt be here. In this case it lists who the headteacher is and where its based, im sorry but where is the notable content and reason for it being in an encyclopedia? I note that the creator of this article has also created other school articles, thankfully, which are up for deletion as well. --PrincessBrat19:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any real problems with a redirect (to the various districts, I assume the 3 are in different ones). However these go away, fine with me. --Brianyoumans07:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or redirect The article needs expanding, some more references and some more text, not deleting. If thats not possible than a redirect as per above. LordHarris00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:19Z
Speedy keep In the future I would suggest using google in languages other than English. I am adding references right now and moving for speedy close. `'mikka16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This site is little more than a dressed up blog. Google and Alexa tests yield relatively high results, but that is largely due to a generic name and a propensity to post unsourced "articles" about celebrities that are then picked up by syndication or aggregator websites. The site has been quoted by a few major news outlets (with lazy writers, apparently) but I still don't think it meets WP:WEB. Just a brief scan of the current front page articles reveals poorly written, plagiarized (compare [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21267532.shtml] to [13]), and defamatory articles (Ana Marie Cox is called a "blog skank"[(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21267637.shtml] ). Their "friend links" page consists largely of conservative and entertainment blogs.[(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/links.shtml] Mysteriously, their supposed "New York", "Washington DC", and "Midwest" offices all share the same phone and fax number. Just not a site that merits a Wikipedia article. -BigSmooth16:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 per nom. Jamison not only lacks an IMDB entry, RollerGames itself just barely has one. It's always a bad sign when the lead Google hit is the Wikipedia article undergoing AfD. RGTraynor18:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would be kind of interesting to slap a "porn" category on Michelangelo's David, then wait and see how long it takes for that article to come up for AfD nomination. (Just joking, of course.) Dekkappai19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was a Playboy model and was reporter and very popular TV show RollerGames. Passes WP:BIO per: "... actors, comedians, opinion makers, and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions." --Oakshade21:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (see below). Doesn't pass WP:BIO merely for being "sideline reporter" in a little-known show which only ran for one season. No other notability or sources given. EliminatorJRTalk23:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Errr ... that would be "appeared as a regular on a show which was cancelled after a single season, and had so little impact on the film world that she doesn't even have an IMDB entry." RGTraynor03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - you can't just take that first clause in isolation, otherwise every extra in a crowd scene in a major film, popular soap opera, etc. would be notable. If you look at the bullet-points; "Notability can be determined by: (a) Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers (b) A large fan base, fan listing, or "cult" following (c) A credible independent biography (d) Wide name recognition (e) Commercial endorsements". EliminatorJRTalk01:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no part of WP:BIO that states that "notablity" must be a combination of clauses. WP:BIO states very clearly "People who satisfy at least one of these criteria may merit their own Wikipedia articles..." And any show that was produced for at least a full season (at least 22 episodes) and shown nationally in the US is certainly "well known." --Oakshade02:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(a) to (e) refers to my posting above. However, we're obviously not going to agree on the semantics of WP:BIO here, so I'll leave it to other editors to decide. EliminatorJRTalk03:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we just plain disagree, both that this nonentity satisfies WP:BIO or that an obscure, forgotten syndicated single-season show is "well-known." As Eliminator correctly says, we'll see what other editors think. RGTraynor14:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I learned she was actually on the cover of Playboy magazine. This makes her notable even if she wasn't on the TV show. --Oakshade00:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also found the USA Today article (though won't pay to see the full text, so can't say much about it). Our article has been rewritte, and reformatted, it clearly meets WP:BIO, please look at it again, folks. --AnonEMouse(squeak)16:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sourcing, high-profile magazine appearance, mainstream media appearances... Easily passes WP:BIO. Why was this nominated for AfD? Dekkappai19:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 sources to back up statements... lacks neutrality... 9/11 conspiracy theories page already exists with relevant theories D17:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW redirect; legitimate page on topic already exists, this version is completely unencyclopedic and little more than a POV essay. It's not sticking around. (|--UlTiMuS18:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lists of members of major ethnic groups in America (those with, say, 3 million 1.5 million or more members) are too broad to adequately maintain, although I'd support splitting up such lists into more maintainable lists, such as "Chinses American actors" or "Chinese American writers". I expect to quickly add other major ethnic groups to this nomination, but not minor ethnic groups, where the lists can be more easily maintained. There are already deletion debates ongoing for List of African Americans and List of Caucasian Americans. Noroton17:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because the same arguments apply to all large ethnic groups. I will check with some reliable source to make sure I've got a reasonable (in my mind) cutoff point between "large" and "small" ethnic groups. I'm not sure how to treat smaller ethnic groups. Anyone can also nominate the rest of them. Noroton18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What are the largest ethnic groups in the U.S.? According to this U.S. Census PDF-file Web page, these numbers of people identified themselves in the 2000 Census as being in these ethnic groups:
German American — 42.8 million (one in six Americans), 15 percent of the population
Irish American — 30.5 million, or 11 percent
African American — 24.9 million, or 9 percent
English American — 24.5 million, or 9 percent
Mexican American — 18.4 million, or 7 percent
Italian American — 15.6 million, or 6 percent
Polish American — 9 million or 8.2 percent
French American — 8.3 million
American Indian — 7.9 million
Scottish American — 4.9 million
Dutch American — 4.5 million
Norwegian American — 4.5 million
Scotch-Irish American — 4.3 million
Swedish American — 4 million
French Canadian — 2.3 million
Russian — 2.7 million
Puerto Rican — 2.7 million
"Hispanic" — 2.4 million
Chinese — 2.3 million
Filipino — 2.1 million
This looks like a good cutoff point for major ethnic groups. I'm going to arrange the list of nominated deletions accordingly. Noroton 18:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (added several others after "Swedish" immediately above in subsequent editNoroton18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
Keep on the basis that this list is really not difficult to maintain, as it's not that long of a list. Population size of the ethnic group is no absolute indication of how many notable people are in that group. And if other editors find it difficult to maintain, then the obvious solution to suggest is to split it up by occupation, and not article deletion. This article doesn't really meet deletion criteria. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom as indiscriminate lists and directories seeking to capture anyone of a common ancestry or heritage with no regard as to whether that ancestry or heritage has anything to do with their achievements or notability. We are rightly suspicious of over-categorization on the basis of race or ethnicity. We should be equally suspicious of over-listification on that basis. I would not make the distinction that the nom is making between "major" and "minor" ethnic groups as that leads to POV issues in deciding what ethnicities are "minor" enough to warrant listification. Otto471119:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is ethnicity not a discriminating criterion? And over-listification? It's a list of people of an ethnic group; there is no over-lapping classification (unless you include people, but ethnicity implies that we're talking about people). -- Black Falcon20:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and agree with Hong Qi Gong. The alternative would implicitly encourage list-ification of non-list articles about these same groups, which is highly undesirable. Also, is this setting an arbitrary qualification population for list articles? If so, would this apply across articles, or would we have separate qualifiers for each "class" of articles? That seems like a messy proposition. --Ishu19:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. These lists have an inclusion criterion that is far too broad and far too indiscriminate and have the potential to stretch to lists thousands of names long and thus cannot be maintained. Arkyan19:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When comments are made that this is "better handled by and/or redundant to a category", the categories and their merits are necessarily involved. -- Black Falcon06:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is the first time I've nominated something for deletion. It took a while and I made some mistakes. The Jewish list article is a list of lists, which seems fine to me since individual lists it links to should be maintainable. I don't see anything wrong with lists that categorize by BOTH ethnic group AND occupation. The Japanese list was a mistake: there are fewer Japanese Americans than I thought and I felt I had to cut the list somewhere. The top 20 ethnic groups in the U.S., by population, are now covered, and I think those are the lists that are too hard to maintain. Anyone participating in this discussion should also participate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African Americans (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Caucasian Americans (second nomination) in order to treat all the larger ethnic groups the same way. Noroton19:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This list is not an indiscriminant list as it is a list based of notable people that are discriminantly American of Chinese-descent. Furthermore, I'm not aware that a "potential to stretch" is criteria for deletion, and again, if the list one day becomes difficult to maintain, the obvious solution is to split it up by occupation. As of now, it is hardly difficult to maintain, and even if it were, deletion is uncalled for. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response The lists still violate WP:NOT#DIR. As section one states, we should not have "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons." A list where the ONLY required associative property is ancestry is the perfect definition of being loosely associated. Claiming that the criteria include notability is implicit in any Wikipedia entry and trying to use that to fortify an argument that a list is narrower doesn't work. Arkyan20:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's only your subjective assumption that "ancestry" is a loose association. Loose association does not require multiple associations if a substantial one will suffice. And ancestry, unlike favorite breakfast foods, is a defining characteristic of individuals. -- Black Falcon20:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that in large part what it boils down to is a subjective definition on where the line seperating loose associations exists. Ancestry is indeed an inherent, defining characteristic as you say and is thus a lot more palatable than many. I suppose it's just my interpretation that ancestry is still too broad a qualifier - but then again I guess that's the purpose of these discussions, to establish a group consensus in situations where a key definition like "loose associations" is subject to interpretation. :) Arkyan21:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Arkyan, the definition of "broad" is ours to make. Fourty-two million-plus German Americans; 30 million Irish Americans, more than 15 million Italian Americans. Too broad by my book. I think most nations have fewer people than these. And for the potential of these lists to grow, take a look at List of Puerto Ricans, covering the notable people of an ethnic group with 2.7 million Americans. Noroton23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response HongQiGong, if all these lists are deleted, I'd be happy to help set up lists organized by Ethnic group/occupation, with lists of lists similar to the Lists of American Jews to help organize it, starting with the Chinese lists. I think the Chinese list could easily be much larger than it is right now, and so could the Chinese American category, although I can't prove it. Noroton20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I think the reason this article exists is precisely because multiple lists of Chinese Americans by occupation would be entirely too small each to merit their own individual existence. I really can't agree that the list as it is now is difficult to maintain, and deleting on the basis that it may become too difficult to maintain is very presumptious, as the criteria for inclusion on this list is a person's notability, which is not exactly easy to achieve like a listing of fruits or something. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, but consider Puerto Ricans, with 2.7 million people (I assume both in Puerto Rico and in the rest of the U.S.) and the extremely long List of Puerto Ricans, which seems to be made up of every third Puerto Rican, almost all of whom have their own Wikipedia article. I think it would be presumptuous to think that there won't be a similar size list from among the 2.3 million Chinese Americans (and I'm not sure whether the Census includes in that the Taiwanese Americans). I think numbers of notable people also increase over time, so that the older the ethnic group is in America, the more notable people there will be, proportionally. But I still think there's an enormous number of Chinese Americans that Wikipedia isn't covering. I don't think smaller lists are a problem, even for navigation if there is a central list of lists. Noroton23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor correction - as of 2005, there were 3.9 million Puerto Ricans (see Puerto Rico) and 3.4 million Chinese Americans (see Chinese American). Anyway, to compare how this list might grow like the list of Puerto Ricans kind of demonstrate a lack of understanding of Chinese American demographics. If you put most Chinese Americans on their own island territory, I'm sure this list would grow like the Puerto Rican list, because they'd have their own concentrated society and culture. Everything that's notable in Puerto Rican society and culture has to do with some notable Puerto Rican. But the fact is that Chinese Americans are very underrepresented in the media, sports, and basically anything that would make them mentionable in news media. Now, I try to keep myself informed with what's going on with the Chinese American population, and to the best of my knowledge, this list is pretty complete in terms of who is nationally notable. Most of the notable people that the list misses are probably people who are only locally notable in certain cities. And granted, the list may be missing people, but the fact remains that this list as of now is not large, and even if it grows, the natural solution is to suggest in its Talk page that it be split, not that it be deleted. I don't see how a potential for growth of this list is criteria for deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points. You're convincing me. I'm going to sleep on it and mull it over a bit, but you're persuading me. Noroton04:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This nomination is not following proper procedure.
1. You cannot lump together a group of "Lists" to be deleted under one sole nomination. Each list to be deleted must be nominated separately thereby, giving each of the interested parties an opportunity to express themselves. That is the norm even if the nominator believes that the same arguments apply to all.
2. To list only the major ethnic groups in America because as the nominator states "those with, say, 3 million 1.5 million" is the same as discriminating per population. If you are going to nominate the deletion of a list of an ethnic, you either nominate "all" of the ethnic groups or none at all. This will also include lists that include people of different religions.
3. The nominators assumption that these lists cannot be maintained is a personal assumption of point of view. I'm sure that there are many editors who are looking out for the integrity of the lists which interest them.
4. The procedure which the nominator used to determined what legally constitute a major ethnic groups in America should have been discussed. Was a consensus held or was it the nominators assumption?
I don't think my argument about overly large lists holds water if the ethnic group is itself small -- that kind of self-regulates the list to keep the size down. What's a fair way of figuring out which ethnic groups are large or small? I thought it was fair to go to the U.S. Census and find out the biggest ones, but I had to make a decision as to how far down the list to go. What's a fair way of doing that? You have to pick a number, and that's a judgment call. Anyone who doesn't like my judgment call can vote against deletion, and by having a larger number of lists in this deletion debate, I hurt my own chances for deleting them, because more supporters are likely to come out. I don't see any fair way around that, and I don't see any clear mark for what's a major or minor ethnic group, so I did a bit of guesswork. I don't see any way around that, either.
Yes, it's my opinion. Maybe it's other people's opinion. Let consensus rule.
I wouldn't know where to have that discussion you speak of except right here, right now. Nominators get to choose how broadly they want their multiple nominations to run, unless there's no reasoning behind it, in which case an admin will make changes, I assume. If someone believes I chose badly, they should vote to keep, which is an incentive for me to try to choose wisely. I don't know what you mean by "legally", I consider "major" my own judgment call, which I mentioned up near the top of this discussion. Noroton 21:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (Edited my response at No. 1 and changed indenting. Noroton21:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC) )[reply]
Keep all. The "List of Caucasian Americans" seems to me to be created as a disruption per WP:POINT. These lists are not overly broad as they include not all members of a given group, but only those members who are notable, per WP:NOT#DIR. -- Black Falcon20:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What purpose do these lists serve? They're all horrendously sourced, where anyone who's described as of "BLANK" background is automatically assumed to be BLANK-American if some nationalist or mistaken journalist calls them that. It can NEVER be perfectly sourced as someone on here described before. 03:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Noroton, I agree--both with discussing in one place and with your suggestion as to what to do with these lists. I have also replied there. -- Black Falcon00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but nowhere in WP:NOT#DIR does it say that collecting only "notable" items exempts an article from its provisions. The policy forbids "loose associations" without regard to how notable or non-notable those loosely associated subjects are. Otto471122:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! "Ethnicity" a loose association? I guess someone forgot to tell the thousands of academics studying it and the tens of millions of people involved or caught up in ethnic conflicts. As for the listing of notable entries, please see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists) (part of the MOS), which states: "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category... ." --
The MOS is not policy. WP:NOT#DIR is policy. If the assertion that this list violates policy is correct, appealing to the MOS does not save it. And yes, ethnicity is a loose association. Academics tend to study segments of different ethnic groups, associated by other factors like socioeconomic status, education levels, and the like. Otto471101:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't disagree more. There has been a lot of studies on history or group demographics of specific American minority groups as a whole, not just specific segments of these groups. Here's a sample course offering from San Francisco State University Asian American Studies department[14]. We see courses like "Chinese in America", "Chinese American Personality", "Chinese American Culture-Language and Literature", "Selected Topics in Chinese American Studies", and other similar courses for other Asian ethnicities - not "Chinese Americans in Sports" or "The Chinese American Middle Class". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Otto, .... your statement is inaccurate. Sure, there are academic who study the relationship between ethnic affiliations and other factors such as SES, education, occupation, etc. However, there is also an entire field of study dedicated to the study ethnic identity, including its bases, its relevance, and its consequences. There are separate classes of theories as to the origins of ethnic identity (broadly termed, instrumentalism, primordialism, and constructivism). There are entire academic literatures dedicated to the study of ethnic/racial/national groups or groupings themselves (mostly in sociology, cultural anthropology, and political science). You don't even need to trust me. See the works of scholars such as Ted Gurr, James Fearon, Milton Esman, Pierre van den Berghe, etc. I can provide hundreds of more names of scholars who focus on ethnic groups in their entirety and not on subdivisions of such groups by income, age, and other non-cultural factors. -- Black Falcon04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, the list provides informative list of notable names of each nationality. This has nothing to with pride. Wikipedia is meant to be a source of information, not division and if there is a demand for a list of famous Caucasian-Americans, so let it be. I have no objections. --XLR8TION20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but saying that a list should exist if there is a demand for a list suggests that you have no intention of maintaining the encyclopedic element of wikipedia. Do you have a reason for wishing to keep these lists besides "they're information and wikipedia is meant to be a source of information"? WP:NOT suggests otherwise. Usedup04:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all lists of _____-Americans: Basically we'll be listing off every notable American on about 40 lists. That will be just too plain big. Superior104:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All (or Split All) All of these "List of XX-Americans" lists are necessarily overbroad. There are thousands (or even tens of thousands for the larger ethnic groups) of "notable" people from each of these groups. Throwing all of those names into one giant list would not only be impossible, it would also be of no use to anyone. I have yet to hear any compelling reason argument for the utility of a five-thousand item list where the only common thread between the names is ethnicity or ancestry. Plus, the category system already handles this same data in a more efficient manner. Vicjm04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The list has existed since April of 2003. Four years later, today, there are exactly 169 names on the list. It's hardly in any danger of growing into a list of "thousands" anytime soon. And even if the list becomes unmanageable, the natural solution is to split the list, not to delete it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - That's entirely true. It its current form the list is managable. But it is also incomplete. This simply isn't a list of every "notable" Chinese American. I can be pretty sure that's case because more people are tagged in the Chinese American category and its subcategories [15] than are on this list. And that doesn't even include the Chinese Americans who have not been tagged as such in their articles. Relatively speaking, it just seems to me that notability is too low of a standard. Like I mentioned on the African-American deletion discussion, while Martin Luther King is certainly a reasonable inclusion on that list, I'm not sure the Detroit Lions' fifth string wide receiver would be (although he is "notable" and thus meets the list's criteria.) I understand that this is a much bigger issue for the larger ethnic groups than the smaller ones, but the underlying issues are the same. I just don't think that notability is restrictive to generate a useful list. Vicjm16:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - I understand your point, however, the potential for a lot of growth of a list is not criteria for deletion. Even if this particular list is too large, the natural solution is to split the list, not delete it. But I do not see any suggestion in the Talk page of the article to split the list because it might become too large. For one thing, we actually do not know if this list would become unmanageable. It's purely conjecture to say it would become so. Chinese Americans are not Caucasian Americans and not African Americans. Arguments for why those lists should be deleted do not necessarily apply to this list, especially if the argument is that the lists are, or would become, too big. Chinese Americans are a much smaller population, and they are very underrepresented in basically anything that would make them mentionable in news media, and thus notable. This is not true of Caucasian Americans and African Americans. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response If you look up at my original post here, you can see that I slightly modified my vote. My primary concern relates to the utility of a list where the only criteria for inclusion are notability and ethnic heritage (neither of which are particularly restrictive). I believe that splitting this list (perhaps in the same manner as this list's Jewish-American counterpart: Lists_of_American_Jews) would address that issue by narrowing the scope of each individual list. Vicjm19:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All for now and renominate some of them. I agree that these articles are sufficiently diverse that they don't really belong in a mass AFD. I think some of these should be deleted because they are too long, unsourced, or both; but some of them don't look that bad. This is too much to consider in one go. --Brianyoumans07:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These lists are overly broad, unwieldy and unmaintainable. As noted above there are over 2.3 million Chinese Americans and even limiting it to all the famous ones who have ever lived is going to result in a very long list. Lists like this tend to become less useful and less encyclopedic the longer they get, in asmuch as their main point of existing is to point people to other articles they might be interested in. Dragomiloff08:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The lists are fine. Certainly until wikipedia's category system is fixed to make it useful. IE displaying more than 200 at a time, and automatic ordering alphabetically. David Spart12:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, the motivation for deleting these articles all stems from the fact that someone created a "Caucasian-American" list. That is not a good reason to throw out many useful litings. StudierMalMarburg15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Otto4711 above; limited utility, border-line original research absent a source saying the person's ethnicity is notable. Tom HarrisonTalk21:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as the anonymous parent of two Puerto Rican schoolchildren, I can assure you that this list is a primary source of information that at least one of my kids will consult on a weekly basis to do school assignments. Administrators should take into account the users' needs and, as a user, this list is invaluable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.50.30.193 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-10 11:53:38
Strong Keep Inclusion to such lists is only given when sources, so this does not violate WP:NOR. Michael 0:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
As already stated, the way these lists are sourced is horrible. Basically its a search for any journalistic mistake. Usedup01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the lists are relatively well-sourced. Sourcing is an even bigger problem for categories, because you can't just source one list, but must source every article in the category. -- Black Falcon06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These lists are useful. The argument that they are too broad and general is nonsense because there are notability guidelines that stop any random Chinese American from putting him/herself on the list. The fact that some of them are sourced poorly is a job for the cleanup tag, not for AfD. enochlau (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It's not just a question of sourcing them. The question that needs to be asked is: do these lists help people looking for information? My answer to that would be no. Having a list of American Jewish philosophers or Russian American mathematicians would actually serve a purpose, these lists however do not do that (in my opinion of course). Pax:Vobiscum14:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An offer has been made above to split these lists by occupation as you have suggested. In order for that to occur, the lists must be temporarily preserved until this split can be performed. Would you reconsider your recommendation in light of this? -- Black Falcon19:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this discussion ends with no consensus or a keep that definitely sounds like the best solution. But nevertheless I still recommend a delete. Pax:Vobiscum19:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. With only 169 names on the list, splitting it by occupation would result in a few very short lists, because the current list is already pretty short. If this list is deleted, then I guess we'll have to split it up into occupation lists. But it looks like this AfD is heading into no consensus. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't believe I just did that. I don't like these lists or categories but something in me says to keep, especially grouped together even though that shouldn't matter. Anyways, --Tom01:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely has potential utility, regardless of whether other editors find it for themselves. If any of the lists are deemed too long, then splitting should be based on Talk consensus. –Pomte04:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's precisely what deletion at AFD is: the complete removal of an article and its history from availability to non-admin readers with no opportunity for restoration except by DRV. If the issue is splitting the lists (to which I and a number of others agree), then the appropriate venue is the article's talk page, not AFD. -- Black Falcon04:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Non-notable software. Can't find any mentions on Google except Wikipedia mirrors, the software's own website and forum postings. Can't find a single independent review of the software. AlistairMcMillan14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the growing interest in Wii Remote drivers, this software's notability is increasing. Wii Remote support should be mentioned in the article. Zophar04:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no independent, credible reviews, we can't cover this topic while meeting WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Maybe in the future, but when we can, it's a different story. Right now we can't, so delete. Mangojuicetalk18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete.WP:NFT. —Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:21Z
Notability not mentioned. Quick Google search do not show up anything relevant. Plus content of the page does smell fictious. soumসৌমোyasch18:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Probably qualifies as an attack article (esp. the Trivia section) and I'd tag it for such if I was certain that the entire thing was untrue. ◄Zahakiel►20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The information provided on this page is about a little known musician whose sphere of influence probably does not extend outside of Essex, UK, although he does have some American contacts. The information is not fiction, and any information which is, or is simply offensive will be promtly removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paronomasia (talk • contribs).
Keep This page should not be deleted on the basis that Young Halz has an extremely popular underground following. Young Halz has successfully collaborated with rap artists across the Atlantic. He has sold in excess of 65000 albums in the UK and has done several concerts, increasing his popularity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.140.188 (talk • contribs). — 81.159.140.188 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep This page should most certainly not be deleted. As stated above Young Halz does indeed have a popular underground following, and his concerts have been very successful to my knowledge. His album Chamber Muzik is one of my personal favourites, and I would highly expect in excess of 30,000 copies of the album to have been sold. Those doubtful of his talent or even his musical presence, in Essex in particular, need only listen to his music. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.228.109 (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC). — 84.64.228.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - For those of you voting "keep" for this entry, please have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The fact that he is "a little known musician" whose influence does not extend beyond a limited region is what disqualifies him from the possibility of an entry in the encyclopedia until he has become popular enough to be mentioned by several third-party sources of information. Myspace pages and blogs (which appear to be all that a Google search for his name reveal) do not qualify as reliable sources. Expectations of possible sales is only guesswork, and if he's sold in excess of 65,000 albums it should be a simple matter to find a review of his music by a credible source. If one of these is posted in the entry, it might change things a bit. ◄Zahakiel►15:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that the three keep "votes" were all posted anonymously, the second was posted within two minutes of the first, and the third was posted less than half an hour later. Two of them have contributed to the article and the only edits they have made have been to that and to this AfD. The third's only contribution has been to this AfD. I think we can guess where their loyalties lie and not take their votes altogether seriously. -- Necrothesp16:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm really not sure how the time at which the comment was made or who it was by, or whether they signed it or not is relavent. If you recieved two letters in the post from the same person you would not immediately assume them to be some fraudulent vandal, so why do so here. The article is about a genuine musician who deserves as much credit as others who are unsigned. This is the reason why there is no definative count for sold CDs, they are published under his own record label which is not official or commercialised. Paronomasia 19:33, 7 March 2007
Comment. It can generally be assumed that when two IPs post virtually identical comments written in virtually identical ways about identical subjects within two minutes of each other from accounts that have only been used to edit things relating to that subject...well, you can draw a logical conclusion. -- Necrothesp00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page should be kept because Young Halz is the future, he's blowing up fast and his fan base has reached all around the UK, his massive underground following even ranges to the USA. Your arguments would suggest that an underground legend like MF Doom should not have an article on wikipedia, which is absurd. -- gs_hova20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC) — gs_hova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Furthermore, the artist in question has agreed to the article, therefore it is not a hoax or an attack article. -- gs_hova20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Both previous votes are from the same person, who also has recently created an account and just worked on the article. Plus, comments like the artist in question has agreed to the article suggests sounds like SPS to me. --soumসৌমোyasch20:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and i dont care is this is the third time ive voted What gs_hova said is totally true, the artist has agreed to it, and no, Ohconfucius, gs_hova is not the subject because if that were the case, then wouldn't the article be titled 'gs_hova', not 'Young Halz'. Furthermore, i don't have a clue what a "GHit" is, or SPS until i clicked on it- they are probably terms invented by the sorts of people who use words such as Hax or L33T - those who have nothing better to do with their spare time but use such words. Not the sort of people who are remotely interested in music, let alone rap. This is probably why so many of you consider it "non-notable", "self published" and "a hoax", even after being told that this is not the case. I am afraid to say that it shows complete and utter ignorance, for which myself, and many others, think should be valid enough reason to stop you from ever editing this site again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paronomasia (talk • contribs).
Delete. Let's assume that it's not a hoax. Does the subject of the article pass WP:MUSIC? I have been unable to find evidence of such and none has been provided by those who have suggested to "keep". Urban Dictionary is hardly a reliable source, so those 2 references (trivial in any case) do nothing to establish notability. -- Black Falcon08:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So what is a reliable source? Many people consider wikipedia itself to be such - not simply a collaboration of information collected from unreliable sources across the internet, so claiming that the information on here needs to be backed up means that the whole of wikipedia is futile. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paronomasia (talk • contribs).
Comment: Exactly. Because many people consider Wikipedia a reliable source (at least to gain knowledge, if not cite), we cannot (and try not to) let unverified facts or someones' inferences creep into the articles. And because it caters to an international audience, the subject of an article has to have a significant sphere of influence before it warrants an article. --soumসৌমোyasch19:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Not needed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:28Z
Delete per nom. Even by the (admittedly low) standards of indy wrestling, this chap has neither done anything nor has any resume to speak of. Ravenswing18:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm crunching this huge list of nominations together into one to make them more cohesive. They're basically all stubs on (apparently non-notable) components of Reason (program), and are almost guaranteed to all meet the same fate. This just makes discussion easier. (|--UlTiMuS
Weak Delete - only link is to their own site; no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in independent sources to establish notability per WP:SOFTWARE. Delete unless sources are added by the end of this AfD. WaltonVivat Regina!18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I see the value in merging these articles, because they are all part of the Reason (program), I feel if they are merged, it will cause that article to be even bigger mess than it already is, and then we'll have to deal with getting that cleaned up. Betaeleven20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundle and KeepReCycle (program), but Merge others. Recycle is a stand-alone, shipped-separately application that is produced by the makers of Reason, but is not part of the same package. It is notable in its own right as a loop editing and "beat-slicing" app. The information in the remaining articles is useful and a careful merge would help the main article, but deletion wouldn't be a disaster. --Mike C | talk14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have made it clearer, but Reason (program) isn't up for deletion here (it's not in the list). It's pretty obviously notable. The question is whether the seperate components are. (|--UlTiMuS17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoReason (program)#Reason devices. If the merge is performed, the issue of notability raised by 2 editors supporting "delete" becomes moot. Notability applies to the subject of an article in its entirety and not to individual sections of an article. -- Black Falcon08:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete - may be notable, but the only links are to sites associated with the person himself, hence no evidence of multiple coverage in third-party sources, which is required to establish notability per WP:BIO. Delete unless independent sources are added by the end of this AfD. WaltonVivat Regina!20:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep I would say that under WP:BIO, Sean Kennedy meets notability under "Entertainers: A large fan base, fan listing, or 'cult' following". In addition, I think he meets "Multiple features in credible magazines and newspapers". Here's a 2003 interview with James O'Brien, where Kennedy also speaks (a GIF of the original interview is available on that page):
He spoke at Adirondack Community College on Monday February 7, 2005 on the importance of independent media (a GIF of the original poster is available on that page):
This is just two links of info, 5 minutes work. Yes, the article isn't encyclopedic, but no, it's not prime deletion material. I hope that everyone reads the previous AfD for this page before finalizing a comment. I'm wondering, if it still reads like a vanity page, did you try trimming out all the vanity before coming to AfD? Davidicke21:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it's me again. I found a little feature in Spin Magazine, November 2000. [16] And also, Cim & Sean's summer 2000 interview by Wired Magazine. [17] So, notability is now established. Davidicke23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have vanity concerns, and way more is written here than what can be verified in sources. I'm also concerned about neutrality. I don't think rantradio.com should be used for reliable sources here. The Wired.com article says very little about this person. He may have been interviewed on a Satellite radio show once, but I don't know what was said or what that proves. Notability is questionable at best. Mangojuicetalk18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questions on references The vanity issues could theoretically be dealt with by cleaning up the article to remove biased or unreferenced statements. However, I am concerned that all the references in the article appear at first glance to be from rantradio.com, which is not independent of the article's subject. Neither is the subject's official web site. So I'd be much more comfortable keeping the article if it can be ammended to include some independent published articles or interviews with the man. If that's done, I'd go for "keep and cleanup article to remove bias and unverified statements". Dugwiki19:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we interpret that as "delete unless independent sources are found?" I think the community may have done as much research here as it's going to. Mangojuicetalk22:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if nothing else changes in the article, I'd probably lean toward deleting, with the possibility of recreating at a later date if those problems can be addressed. Dugwiki23:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above. Independent references satisfying WP:N include Spin, Wired, and The Computer Paper. Are we allowed to edit during the AfD process? Who wants to start the editing? Davidicke17:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, please feel free to improve the article during afd. Sometimes afds go from being "delete" to "keep" based on changes made during the discussion. Dugwiki18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strictly speaking, WP:CSD#G4 does not apply, since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver J. Y. Denton was itself closed as a speedy deletion. However, I too had already looked for proof of the existence of the three books named in this article before noticing this discussion, and come to the same conclusion as both the nominator and Jim Douglas, which is the same conclusion that at least one editor came to in the previous AFD discussion, namely that this is a hoax. The article cites no sources, and a quick search turns up no sources documenting this person, let alone what xe once said in a student debating society debate. I'm therefore deleting this under a combination of our Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy and WP:CSD#G11 for being a clear attempt to advertise the subject with a hoax biography whose contents cannot be substantiated. Uncle G15:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible vanity article of a non-notable author. Article was created by a single-purpose account. Claims to have published two books; the first is a 40-page pamphlet issued by Hudson History, a tiny independent publisher of local history. (The positive Amazon reviews of it look suspiciously like the work of sockpuppets.) I can find no evidence that the second book even exists; Amazon and Google searches turn up empty. Psychonaut18:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree with nominator, this guy does exist but not notable by any means. Being a member and vocal person of a polictial party does not automatically make you notable an if that was the case, we could have literally hundreds of thousands of local politicans getting articles and a bio. --PrincessBrat19:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Amateur junior football club. Ordinarily those are nonnotable, but this one has been around since 1928 so I'm more comfortable with AFD than speedy here. NawlinWiki19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this club has been around since 1928, there isnt much content about it. Its merely a list with the squad and club committee members. I wouldnt have thought its notable to anyone outside the local area. Id maybe change my mind if there were some details whats so notable and great about this club, as the article in its present state is at best a glorified list. --PrincessBrat19:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally non notable and fails WP:CORP. Being formed in 1928 is not notable or unusual, most pub teams can trace roots back further than that. Nuttah6819:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Junior" in the Scottish context does not mean Under-18 players or anything like that. The Scottish Junior F.A. to which Jeanfield are affilated adminsters most of what would be "non-league" football in England. Several Junior clubs get much larger crowds than Scottish League Division Three, but there is no mechanism for them to move to come under the jurisdiction of the SFA and join the Scottish League. The Scottish Junior Cup final often draws a 5-figure crowd and is shown live on Scottish TV. If they were situated south of Hadrian's Wall, a club of this stature would be notable. Don't be put off by the word "Junior". In my opinion, all SJFA clubs would count as notable (there's another level, Scottish Amateur Football below that, and I certainly wouldn't vote to keep any club at that level) - fchd19:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to respond as an Englishman to the Hadrians Wall comment - which was out of order. If this club is so great and attracts big crowds, why is the article so short and has nothign to offer? Id be prepared to retract my view if more detail is put into the article but I have doubts that it will. --PrincessBrat20:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You might find some info worth adding here..... Just noticed it's already shown as a source..... 11:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"Out of order"? If you think so, I apologise, but the point I was trying to make was that if this club were playing in an English League of a roughly equivalent standard, say the North West Counties League, there would be no prospect of deletion (e.g. See Holker Old Boys F.C.orLeek CSOB F.C.), and rightly so. - fchd21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PrincessBrat, get over yourself. In what way was Richard's comment "out of order"? He was merely pointing out that this is a club of similar stature to the hundreds of English non-league clubs that are on Wikipedia at present. He has quite eloquently explained what the term "junior" football means in a Scottish context, and that for me should suffice to keep the article. By the way, that means I say keep as well. As for your comments about the article being short - that surely isn't a basis for deletion. Otherwise we have to go around deleting every stub article that exists on the website! furthermore the length of any article is purely a subjective matter and no basis for deletion. - Big Jim Fae Scotland 11:03, 7 March 2007
Yeah, I somehow doubt that Richard's off on some crusade against England, English people, or English football given that he comes from the West Country (of England) himself.... ChrisTheDude11:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still hold my view regardless of him being Scottish or English that it was unneccasary comment as it implied bias on articles that are English over Scottish. Also I must say there is only people in the local area or maybe someone with a keen interest in Scottish sides that could expand this article, snice the website is non-existant, and there isnt mucgh to go on on the google search. Id say there is more info on the under 19s side website. Im still holding my view of it being a glorified list - the intro seems reasonable but beyond that the article doesnt serve any purpose at the state its in at the moment and I dont see what use it is on here. The honours section is fine but its the middle content thats missing and I still hold by my view if someone could stick some info in this middle bit Id have no problems with the article. I note the two football teams from Big Jim do have some general all be it short info but they are not just a list of Squad and Management --PrincessBrat11:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a) You have no idea whether I'm English, Scottish or Papua New Guinean. However, you are correct - my comment did imply bias on articles that relate to English teams over Scottish teams, and I'll do more than imply it - I'll state it clearly here and now. Going back to the point, the article may be short, but what there is can be notable and verifiable and expandable by those who have more knowledge of the subject than I. Nothing in your argument gives any reason for a 'delete' consensus. - fchd12:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't get so worked up over this fchd, it's only a non-notable article after all. Also, I took the liberty of reading your profile page and note your interest in this field and also that you're an Englishman. The article has been there since September and in 6 months nothing much added on. Hence why it's worthy to be done away with. It's likely if it hadn't been nominated for deletion that it would remain in a poor state and if anything this has helped it in some way. I think if you read what I've written you will see my reasons for agreeing with deletion, and I don't really care if you think they are right or wrong, I am entitled to state what I think. Instead of revisiting your biased comment and justifying it, I think you should use something better of your time. --PrincessBrat14:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where on my profile does it state that I'm an Englishman? It says I live in Bideford. As a matter of fact I don't consider myself English at all, but you weren't to know that. I still think (while you are certainly entitled to your opinion), that your reasons for deletion are wrong - the fact that's it been there since September and in 6 months nothing much has been added on - do not meet any of the policy criteria for deletion. And I'll decide what I do with my time thank you very much. You're the one getting worked up, saying my original comment was "Over the top", using phraseolgy like "biased" etc. If I see I'm being pilloried, I reserve the right to explain, justify and defend myself. My interest after all, is primarily in the football clubs of England & Wales. My original comment stands, if this club and article was in an English context, this AfD would simply not have happened. - fchd16:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My point on 6 months was that its been there that long and remained a list! Thats fact. It really cannot be that notable if there isnt much there - dont you think, otherwise there would be lots to say about the club? In response if this was an English club, on that Ive read some of the articles on those clubs as well in lower/ameteur leagues and if I was doing an encyclopedia myself Id have them deleted as well as they are not notable, just like this club. --PrincessBrat17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To dudesleeper if Alex Fergusons article is not edited for 6 months there is no issue, but his article would have notable content in it which would be valid after 6 months. At some point they wont be anything left to say about him as it would all be in the article! I would never support a nomination if it was unedited for 6 months but had notable content in it. What Im saying here is this article has had 6 months for someone to put some notable content in and there has been a failure to do that. --PrincessBrat17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dont accuse me of being naive becuase I managed to argue your point and you cant respond. If you cant make further comments about an arguement in a reasonable manner dont respond back at all --PrincessBrat22:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though Comment: We should probably have a rule for how far down the Scottish football pyramid clubs automatically remain notable, in the same way as the English one (Level 10 being the limit IIRC). In Scotland at the moment, we appear to have Levels 1-4 (Scottish Premier/Scottish Leagues 1-3), Level 5 (Highland League etc.), followed by Junior football. Now are all the Junior league on one level (notable), or are there many levels, some of which would be notable, some not? Would someone more knowledgeable like to offer a guideline? EliminatorJRTalk23:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are three regions: West (four tiers), East (three tiers) and North (also three). I'll defer to someone with more knowledge as to their notability, as I'm a relative newcomer to Scottish junior football's finer points. I'll enquire with Big Jim Fae Scotland, who started the SJFA article. - DudesleeperTalk23:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to place the SJFA clubs alongside the SFA ones, as I've said above, there isn't a mechanism for any interchange between the two. I'd certainly place them at least alongside the Highland clubs etc. If they were in England, I'd expect all but the bottom few North Region clubs to pass the notability claims, and as that would exclude so few I'd be inclined to include them as well to complete the "set". - fchd05:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I have been mentioned here maybe I should post to sat that I agree with everything Richard (fchd) has said. We cannot readily categorise Scottish football at being at "levels" the same way as we can in England due to the absence of a pyramid system. However, if we were going to try and categorise the clubs as belonging to levels (or tiers) then we could probably identify eight in total (bearing in mind that this is purely my unofficial interpretation and there is no link between levels four and five, and the levels five to eight are wholly unconnected from one another except for some cup competitions), as follows:
Level One (1 league, 1 division): Scottish Premier League
Level Two (1 league, 1 division): Scottish Football League First Division
Level Three (1 league, 1 division): Scottish Football League Second Division
Level Four (1 league, 1 division): Scottish Football League Third Division
Level Five (6 leagues, 6 divisions): Highland Football League; East of Scotland Football League Premier Division; South of Scotland Football League; Juniors West Region Super League Premier Division; Juniors East Region Super League; Juniors North Region Premier Division
Level Six (4 leagues, 4 divisions): East of Scotland Football League First Division; Juniors West Region Super League First Division; Juniors East Region Premier Division; Juniors North Region First Division
Level Seven (3 leagues, 6 divisions): Juniors West Region Central First Division; Juniors West Region Ayrshire Division; Juniors East Region South Division; Juniors East Region Central Division; Juniors East Region North Division; Juniors North Region Second Division
Level Eight (1 league, 1 division): Juniors Eest Region Central Second Division
That is probably clear as mud to most people who aren't familiar with the intracate details of the bizarre way in which Scottish football has evolved. However, if we are determined to classify football clubs at belonging to some level or another then I think we can readily identify eight such "levels".
At any rate, I am firmly of the opinion that all "junior" clubs in Scotland are noteworthy and merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Indeed, I have written many of these articles myself and would be royally peed off if someone blithely started deleting them because they hadn't heard of the club themselves, or because the article is somehow too "short".
Delete - I feel the article should be deleted as Jeanfield Swifts are not a notable club whatsoever. They are comprised of amateur players in Scotland and there are better amateur teams in existence. Wikipedia has to draw the line when a team becoms not notable. I could argue that many amateur teams are a lot bigger than the 'junior' team Jeanfield swifts and attract bigger crowds. Having watched them a couple of times there are not any more than 40 people at their home games, at the very most. I'd say the average number is around 20. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.13.100 (talk • contribs)
I'd say the average number is around 20. Which is around, oh, ten more than St. Johnstone get. Another reason for their notability. - Dudesleeper · Talk15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I understand all of the above arguments and this debate becomes a larger one of weather or not a Scottish junior level club is notable. I have to say, as an American, that if USL PDL and NPSL teams are worthy of an page so is a Scottish club of comparable notablity. м info04:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:36Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:36Z
Weak delete. He's on Allmusic but gets zero Google News hits, and the only GHits clearly about him are his personal site, this article, and one other source of unclear notability. ObtuseAngle19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
IfDaniel Brandt can try and get his own article deleted, then I can do the same for this one! I'm requesting deletion on the subject's behalf. is she worth even being here?? no, was the view of people I work with. Lagunabeacher19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep has "starred" in two prominent reality shows and has been covered extensively by major media outlets. She's notable. -BigSmooth20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work for MTV, and the company that produced Laguna Beach, and per request of Ms. Conrad, we are going to get this article deleted. If Daniel Brandt "Dan the Man" can try, we can too! --Lagunabeacher20:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - borderline for notability under WP:BIO, but I have a problem with the nomination; just because the subject and/or her colleagues do not think that she merits an article does not mean that this factor should be considered in deletion discussions. None of the article fails WP:BLP as far as I can see, and the nominator cites no policies in arguing for deletion. WaltonVivat Regina!20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I work with people who work with Ms. Conrad, and she has specifically requested she gets this article deleted. It's not a WP:POINT (I assume its some shorthand for attention-seeking!), it's a genuine request. If Ms.Conrad wants it deleted, she should be able to get it deleted. Look at people like Mr. Daniel "Dan the Man" Brandt, who tried, and failed. Veni, vidi, but not quite vici. --Lagunabeacher21:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - reason for nomination is bogus; as far as I can tell, there is no policy against pages on public figures that do not wish to have an article about them, and the nominator would have no standing even if there were. I'd think working at MTV would actually present a conflict of interest, and would mean the nominator should also avoid editing such articles. Subject meets notability guidelines. --skew-t21:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Lauren wants it deleted, we will try and get it deleted. Daniel Brandt has spent ages trying to get rid of his article here, shouldn't Lauren Conrad do the same?? Well, she asked specifically that we do it, so we will. And, yes, I work for MTV, in Europe. --Carla at MTV Europe1622:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep unless we can get verifiable confirmation that Ms. Conrad herself (and not just someone claiming to speak on her behalf) doesn't want this page to exist, the point is moot (and even with such confirmation, there still would be a sizable debate). --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, Daniel Brandt has tried to get his article deleted. I voted keep there, and I will do the same here. Deleting an article based on the subject's displeasure is a form of censorship.--Danaman522:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep choosing to star in reality TV shows indicates a desire for publicity. But are these particular shows Notable? If not , she wouldn't be, as there's no other real reason. There is a good deal of material in the article which could and should be deleted, particularly the first paragraph, either as BLP if not wanted by the subject, or as trivial COI if it is.DGG02:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The first section (bio) was vandalized earlier today and was replaced with text from IMDB; it has now been returned to it's earlier state. --skew-t05:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Looks like this was an abandoned attempt to do a breakaway article from the main Thomas Cook piece. Delete as duplication and not really necessary as a separate article. 23skidoo20:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost entirely redundant to Thomas Cook#Company ownership. A merge has not been performed yet, so redirecting per GFDL is unnecessary. However, the two versions differ with respect to the last sentence (there may be other differences that I didn't notice), so a quick/selective merge may be in order. -- Black Falcon08:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:39Z
Yet another unsigned band. Arguably asserts notability due to mention in NME and radio airplay, but I don't think it's enough for WP:BAND. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki19:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of multiple non-trivial coverage in third-party sources to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Borderline for speedy A7, but give it the benefit of the doubt - someone might add some sources by the end of this AfD. WaltonVivat Regina!20:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What references? A brief mention in NME, some obscure radio stations and a MySpace? Nowhere near meeting WP:BAND at the moment - it can be re-created if/when they achieve notability. EliminatorJRTalk23:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - "no verifiable content" is going too far. There's only one link in the article, but it's easy to follow that to a link for the monastery in Scotland, which does appear to be a traditionalist Catholic group. The monastery in Silver City, NM isn't hard to find information on either. Granted the article needs a lot of work, but it's not as clearly unverifable as the nom suggests. -- BPMullins | Talk21:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the comments above, which among other things indicate that consensus for deletion will not emerge, I withdraw, if I may, my proposal. Lima08:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:41Z
Non notable hip-hop group. Not the group listed on AllMusic. Appeared on an episode of John Peel and was featured on NME over 15 years ago, but never went anywhere. Reference links are to unedited free sites. Richfife20:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possible speedy? Creator (and sole non-tagging contributor) blanked the page, which indicates a desire for removal under CSD-G7. - Richfife18:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:42Z
Appears to be a local unsigned band with no independent references provided for verification or notability purposes as recommended by WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Delete pending some independently published articles or interviews about the band or similar caliber references provided. Dugwiki21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. No sources (either primary or secondary) are noted and I could find none through a Google search. Moreover, they have not yet released an album, so the existence of the necessary sources is unlikely. -- Black Falcon09:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A charity with a website. A noble aim, I'm sure, but several of the 35 unique Google hits are unrelated, only one is anythign above trivial (a 1997 review of the website), Factiva turns up some passing mentikons and press releases, Google News a handful of the same. No evidence that I can see of multiple non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. My opinion is somewhat coloured by the fact that Sspillers (talk·contribs) (check those contribs), who is employed by the academy, added a very large number of links some time back, often with blatantly promotional link text, and is now emailing me to ask for them to be allowed back in. Apparently it took a while to notice their removal. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very much to my surprise, I easily found unimpeachable sources (WSJ, NYT, Chicago Tribune) on the Proquest subscription database. I've added the 3 best. I cannot explain the lack of web links--it seems they do actually need some publicity! DGG03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added by DGG. A strange phenomenon indeed that an annual meeting of such notable and famous individuals receives so little coverage: the WSJ description as the "Glitziest Gathering Nobody Knows" seems quite accurate. -- Black Falcon09:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The content of this article is superceded by the "Superpower" page. It is pointless to have a second one reserved for countries/regions that may become superpowers. It is also worth noting that in the past, various pages on topics such as "China as an emerging superpower" were deleted after nomination. It appears various users are attempting to restore them, despite the decision to delete them. John Smith's21:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article has no content that does not exist in Superpower, but is a valid term in and of itself and as such has a section in the more comprehensive article. Woudln't it have been simpler to just do a redirect?Arkyan22:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the consensus of the other contributors, I would agree with that. However a formal vote is required regardless in my opinion, as users may just revert the redirect. John Smith's22:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecttosuperpower. "Emerging superpower" is a valid term, but the article contains nothing that isn't already at superpower. If, following a consensus at AFD, the redirect is reverted without changing the content by addressing the issues raised here, caution the users to discontinue potentially disruptive behaviour. If such behaviour persists, report it at WP:ANI. -- Black Falcon09:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:44Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:45Z
I {prod}ed this and the tag was removed without any comment on the discussion page. The article is completely unsourced, and appears to be original research. When I prodded it, I suggested it would be better as a part of alternative or popular music. This is still the case. Flyguy649talkcontribs22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:45Z
Keep: Many other songs have their own pages, and more may be reportable on this song after its release/Eurovision performance. I created the article and my original version did not contain lyrics and so surely a revert would suffice there. Martin Leng18:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's one of eight articles about Eurovision songs from 2007, and there are likely to be more to come. If this article gets deleted now, and the song were to do well at Eurovision, it would most likely be created again anyway. I agree about the lyrics, they should be deleted for the reasons already mentioned above. Chwech23:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being a Eurovision song conveys notability. Given the consensus above, I'm deleting the lyrics and leaving only the initial stub-length introduction. -- Black Falcon09:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:46Z
Delete: I don't see how many 'Empire Stikes Back' entries you can have, outside of what's already present. It's already well linked elsewhere and this page is essentially a duplication. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's perfectly reasonable and acceptable to have a dab page for multiple uses of a title, even within a franchise, and there are also other uses that justify a dab page. I agree that the fact this has previously been nominated -- and kept -- should have been mentioned. In fact I just reminded myself that I also voted to keep in that discussion, too. 23skidoo01:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The disambiguation page lists 13 different objects and/or concepts. Not all of them are relevant to the main Star Wars article, and the disambiguation page serves a valid purpose in directing users to the multiple related uses of the term. -- Black Falcon09:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:47Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:48Z
Here is the deal: A simple Whois will show that Audiowrestling.com is owned by one Brian Kelley. The only notability this article attempts is by winning awards from WrestlingRadioAwards.com. That site is owned by...wait for it...Brian Kelley. Basically, this guy gives himself awards every year and that is supposed to be notability. Non-notable website. IrishGuytalk22:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
weak delete I added some missing info, but he is an Assistant Prof. at BYU, with only the one book mentioned and a few conference papers.DGG04:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Being on the "100 Worst Porn Movies" list means nothing, it's just a list some random person put up, not a reliable source. Barring a new major claim of notability, this should go. Mangojuicetalk16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do you care to elaborate on why, Easyas12c? She definitely fails WP:PORNBIO on points 1-4, and performances in two films does not firmly establish her as a prolific performer in the queefing genre. --Strangerer (Talk | Contribs) 23:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. This is likely a performer in a niche genre. As such it may meet notability guidelines. I think the case here is why it does not meet that requirement. The article appears to assert meeting this. Vegaswikian06:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - More evidence needed that she has been notable or prolific within the genre of queefing. It appears she has only been in two queefing movies and it isn't clear whether she is one of the most notable performers in this genre. Epbr12317:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Epbr123. "Notable" within the queefing genre (I almost can't believe there is a specific niche for this) suggests there be some independent coverage, and none is cited. Prolific in the genre is the least convincing criterion for inclusion and must surely require more than two movies.--Kubigula(talk)22:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong Keep I've added and cited assertion of notability for this website, which is most likely the most respected comic news source on the web, and one of the two largest (with Newsarama). The problem here was with the stub, not the site itself. (Disclaimer: never worked on this wikipedia article or seen it before, but I'm very familiar with the website. No WP:COI, just an editor with an opinion here) More work needs to be done here certainly. -Markeer00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand CBR is notable but this article is in desperate need to attention. Just to let you know, I am a registered user of CBR, but rarely post. There is no WP:COI of interest here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shaoken (talk • contribs).
Keep CBR is one of the most popular comic book news sites. It also contains Rich Johnston's column, which has had major news releases. Also, CBR ran a column of Warren Ellis' which was later printed as the book Come in Alone. Darrik200:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but strongly expand The site is very resourceful and important people in the comic medium participate with them. It has already expanded to TV series and movies (most notably their current interviews with HEROES writers).Vicco Lizcano18:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)(Tell mewhere I'm wrong)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 My only reservations are that these are the tallest structure in Puerto Rico. However, Delete, only on the basis that no more than the two sentences will ever be written on it. Ohconfucius02:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep In my opinion, "just doing one's job" is not a great reason for deletion – almost all biographical articles on Wikipedia are about people just doing their jobs – TV presenters, politicians, writers, musicians, pretty much everyone. In Kathy Bowlen's case, her job means she is seen, heard and recognised by hundreds of thousands of Victorians, and I'd been hard-pressed to consider that non-notable. --Canley01:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, this is the second time that you Peta, that you've wanted to change something that I've put on. I am aware that I saw a 26 year old woman from Canberra, studying university some time on TV commenting with your username to a news reporter a few months ago. Not notable too I guess. You're welcome to remove anything that I've placed on Wikipedia, if that's what you like, though I've been placing such material for the general public with no such bias (hopefully on my side).
Here's why I uploaded the material: someone put a link to this person, which I decided readily to follow-up on more information on the person. Here's why I put it on: The presenter is not a celebrity, agreed. But were someone interested in seeing a presenter and how he or she looks, I feel this would be an ideal place for someone this as general information. There are other presenters on the ABC news site too. If you feel that the presenter's privacy has been violated, well I'll be happy for the article to be deleted. Though I think trival information such as this should be available, deleting it would get close to being tyranical, Orwellian you might say.
End of commentary on my side then. Try0yrt 08:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong Keep In my view "just doing her job" makes her notable, given the job she does. All kinds of notable people from George W Bush down are notable only because of their job. I would say a newreader for the ABC at state level is definitely notable. It would also be a very sad day if one had to be a celebrity to be considered notable for our purposes
Weak Keep, as far as newsreaders go, she's pretty run-of-the-mill, but the mere fact that she's in that occupation probably makes her notable. Just. Lankiveil08:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the independent coverage (alumni profile and The Age article in "External links") which passes WP:BIO (just, but still passes). High-visibility is a plus. -- Black Falcon09:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Wikipedia is NOT... what? To the nominator: If you're citing WP:NOT as a reason for deletion, please at least let us know which specific aspect of WP:NOT you are alluding to. Or did you mean WP:NOTABILITY? --Canley01:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly "indiscriminate list of information". I don't think this list needs deleting, as ambassadors can be notable, but a list of links to non-entries doesn't really result in me knowing anything more than I did before reading it. Andjam02:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indiscriminate information is what I was thinking when I made the nom. In my opinion, as far as BIO goes these individuals are on par with "local officials" i.e. they need to be pretty notable to warrant a mention in an encyclopedia.--Peta05:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can we really apply WP:BIO here? These are lists, not biographies. If the people listed are deemed not notable for articles of their own, then just remove the internal links unless a sourced article about a notable subject does exist. That said, I'm sure that hundreds if not thousands of ambassadors are notable enough for articles due to other achievements or positions, and I don't think we can easily apply the "local official" designation so broadly to them. I do, however, agree with JRG, these articles would be better as a "Country A-Country B relations" article with these lists as subsets. --Canley14:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
week Keep unless we want to make it and all similar one a category. I note that there are over 20,000 different possibilities, though not all are likely to be of high priority. They would serve as lists of notable public servants about whom we need articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - where else does this information go? Can't we have a general page on "Iranian-Australian relations" and include these people as one small section of an article? Why do we always have to go for the easy option and delete everything? JRG09:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Senior diplomats are very often quoted as representatives of their own countries, referred to as taking part in various official events or treaties, and frequently cited as experts in the media of their own countries, especially after retirement. Still, every single ambassador may not be individually worth an article. But even if the ambassadors are not always individually notable, the positions are, and lists like these ones can be very useful for establishing context and chronology in other historical articles. There is in fact a major reference work with lists just like these ones, but covering the period 1648-1815, Repertory of the diplomatic representatives of all countries since the peace of Westphalia (1648), published by an international committee of historians in three volumes 1936-1960. A review of the first volume called it a "[work] of immense value to historians as a book of reference" (Basil Williams in The English Historical Review 1937, p. 709), a review of the final volume summarized it as an "indispensible work of reference" (D. B. Horn in The English Historical Review 1968, p. 189). Pharamond14:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This nomination is not grounded in a sound understanding of any criteria for deletion. Ambassadors are highly notable, particularly in the arena of foreign relations. It's not necessarily of interest to everyone, but it's notable, verifiable, and most importantly: discriminate. Also, I don't think the nominator understands the role an ambassador fills in International Relations. The suggestion that an Ambassador is on par with a "local official" is not based on a reasonable assessment of the two jobs. --JayHenry04:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these highly notable people, not one of which anyone has bothered to give their own article. So while they me notable in the area of foreign relations, they obviously aren't notable in the area of Wikipedia. --Steve (Slf67) talk 07:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But real world notability (as in "notable in the area of foreign relations") can hardly be irrelevant to Wikipedia, can it? Pharamond07:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has bothered to give them an article, therefore they are not notable? That's not a valid argument. WP:LIST says that one of the reasons to build a list is for development purposes -- to catalog articles that have yet to be written. Unless someone can site an actual wikipedia policy justifying this deletion, I don't see how this can be deleted. --JayHenry15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nuttah68. The list criteria are clear and precise, and ambassadors are likely to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Weak keep for these particular examples as they appear to be incomplete, and one doesn't even have dates. I'd accept a merge as suggested by JRG. --Scott DavisTalk12:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed a trend I find disturbing of nominating almost any and every list on wikipedia for deletion. I see several arguments, from those wanting to delete the lists, that are fallacious and yet persistent. First, I gently encourage anyone who thinks this (and other lists on AFD, for that matter) is "indiscriminate" to actually go to wiktionary and look up the definition of the word. A muddled understanding of this word -- the notion that it refers to lists of minor importance or something -- is leading to a lot of unnecessary deletions. Second, I've seen numerous suggestions that if every item (or most) on a list does not contain a blue link, the list is invalid. This isn't the point of lists. WP:LIST explicitly states that lists can be used to develop articles that have not been written. But lists are also important that simply record chronology, etc. This list imparts useful, verifiable, notable information. The fact that the links are all red is completely irrelevant and should not be cited as a criteria for deletion. Many problematic lists will have red links, but this is not a valid reason to delete all lists that have red links. --JayHenry15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "disturbing trend" in this case is limited to a group of Australian editors who are in the process of tidying and pruning Australian lists into a manageable set for the limited effort available in that geography. Our focus is limited to the collection at Lists of Australians and the discussion there. --Steve (Slf67) talk 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slf67, I didn't mean to suggest that the trend is the result of a cabal of editors. I didn't mean to imply that any individual is responsible for all the deletions. I sincerely apologize if that's how it was interpreted. I just meant that there's a lot of lists being nominated recently, and I repeatedly see several policies incorrectly cited. If the red links bother you, why not just remove the links? It's a useful timeline that satisfies all of wikipedia's policies. --JayHenry02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lack of inclusion in Wikipedia is not necessarily an indicator of non-notability, and vice versa. The lists can be kept as aiding in the development of articles on "people who are not currently covered by Wikipedia, but who should have their own articles". Please note, this may not apply to all of the persons on this list, but the determination of that is a matter for the talk page. If the articles are created and a better mechanism for aiding development is advanced, renominate for deletion. -- Black Falcon09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks can be good because they encourage others to write an article there when they see it. Also it gives you an idea of the need for an article when you look at "what links here". MathmoTalk09:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't believe this breaks the threshold for notability per WP:WEB. The sources and links given are self-referential except for one review of a photo-sharing service provided by the site. WP:WEB says sources must be multiple and non-trivial. RJASE1Talk23:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the criteria may not be applicable here, or for similar services. If the number of participants can be confirmed, I think this is sufficient for notability. Time we recognized reality about web services in general. DGG09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notable enough as they are the group behind several popular internet "activist" sites, but needs independent sources. Dragomiloff23:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A number of Google News references for the group. Also, despite WP:BIGNUMBER, which I agree with in principle, 7 million is a large enough number to confer notability. If all else fails (although I don't think this is the case here), WP:IAR should cover this: the inclusion of an organisation with a membership of 7 million is certainly beneficial to the building of an encyclopedia. I will try to improve the article with independent references by the close of the AFD, but can make no promises (as the close-date is in 14 hours). If closed as keep, I will still try to improve it with sources. -- Black Falcon09:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Very not notable. Let me remind you that "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." There are no such sources -- Google News turns up only one hit for "David DeAngelo," and the reference is a single sentence long in a sex column. The article fails WP:CITE for just this reason -- and oh how it fails WP:CITE. Look at the references that we do have after the past two years: (1) is total spam; (2) only says how large the dude's e-mail list is, and is not reliable nor independent of the subject; (3)-(4) are non-notable blogs, (5)-(8) are primary sources, authored by DeAngelo himself, (9) is an unreliable anonymous person who cannot spell his own name "Dmitri" right, and (10) is more total spam. We don't have sources because they don't exist -- and their nonexistence is a fact regardless of how many hits you get on Google with his name (102,000 as of this post, and a quick scan of the first 100 hits shows nothing useful for encyclopedic use.) -- Drostie00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A disclosure is requested on your part. Assuming it's true that you are an anti-abortionist, do you truly believe that your anti-abortionist beliefs do not cause you to exhibit bias against the seduction community and against the subject of this article? I form this connection because successful seduction training results in increased sex which results in increased pregnancies which results in increased abortions. --Amit20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption is rather blatantly incorrect. I'm vigorously pro-choice within the first two trimesters of pregnancy, when 99% of abortions happen. Even if I weren't, you're trying to draw a very weak link -- from "anti-abortion" to "anti-sexual" to "anti-seduction," which makes very little sense on balance. My argument is simple: we can't do a biographical article on DeAngelo, because there aren't any biographies of him. We can't do a scientific article on DeAngelo's work, because he hasn't published his work scientifically. We can't do an analysis of DeAngelo's popular impact, because only one single book has been written containing any information on that (The Game); and this book discusses only one seminar and makes passing reference to an e-mail list. What remains? An article documenting DeAngelo's personal beliefs, citing his e-books and websites as sources. I don't think that merits an encyclopedia article. -- Drostie00:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Note that The Game makes 19 references to the subject. The new book The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed makes additionally makes 2 references to the subject. Note that these books are by competitors in the segment. --Amit01:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the references that The Game makes -- I own the book. And none of them are good enough to deal with either a biography of DeAngelo, nor an analysis of popular impact. The two references in The Mystery Method -- well, did you even read the two references? They won't help either. Again, let me ask -- do you intend this as a biographical article, a scientific article, a popular-impact article, or an article on what DeAngelo happens to personally believe? If it's doomed to be the last of these, do you really think that's encyclopedic? -- Drostie02:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't debating the relevance of any of the references. I was just stating they exist, because that wasn't clear from your previous comment. --Amit03:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a strong relation between a subject being notable and their relation to a subset of the world, which I've gone into greater detail later on from here. MathmoTalk05:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your views exhibit excessive bias and generalization. What's crap to you is gold to someone else, and vice versa. --Amit02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I'm afraid I agree with Amit, your views exhibit bias. Neither have you explained how it violates said policies, nor given any specific reasons for deletion. Meaning, your sentence violates daa-da-da could be copy-pasted to 20 other AfDs without adding anything useful to the discussion. In addition to all of this, you ask who needs this crap anyway - i'd like answer - the people for whom we are writing this encyclopedia. An article on B7 (protein) is useless to a teenager surfing for porn, but is definitely useful to a high school student looking up proteins for bio class. Different areas of interest do not mean that someone else's area of interest is non-notable. If you could expand on your comment, it would be helpful. Thanks xC | ☎20:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reference #2 would not only mention the size of his email list (which is over a million subscribers) but rather is just being used a reference for that one fact. Also the book is reliable and independent of David DeAngelo himself. MathmoTalk01:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The book reads like fiction, is a primary source (not a secondary source), and was authored by someone who has a personal stake in the seduction community. We have no guarantee that the publisher tried to hold him to factual accuracy and verifiability; indeed, the (now-defunct) publishing imprint made a point of specializing in controversial materials. The Game is not a reliable secondary source -- not in the way that a New York Times article is. And Neil Strauss' New York Times article makes no mention of DeAngelo -- so we're supposed to believe that this guy is notable in the community? -- Drostie02:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are replying to a comment that identifies precisely why it isn't. If you wish me to copy and paste it over again in specific response to you, I could, but it would be redundant. -- Drostie03:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the reference in wikipedia that sources have to be independent of each other? I'm sure it is somewhere, but with the changes that have been happening I can't quite see what has happened to it. I'm looking through WP:ATT but can't find any reference to independence of sources. MathmoTalk04:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only reference with even a semblance of reliability is the book, which is only being used to back up a single fact and certainly isn't primarily about this guy. Other than that, no sources. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk*01:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Let me remind you that seduction is a controversial topic to write about, and it therefore doesn't receive much coverage in the popular press. I suggest you use Google News Archive search to determine references. Here are a few references for David DeAngelo and/or Double Your Dating:
Comment - No, those sources don't remove the WP:CITE burden: (1) DeAngelo only appears in one sentence in this article. (2) Press release distributor that, hence, doesn't do fact-checking; the freaking company's slogan is "Accelerating Search Visibility." (3) That's a blog, you dodo. (4) & (5), I can't comment on them because they're not publically available. (6) ... Another press release factory. (7) Finally, a legitimate source. Unfortunately, this is an opinion article within that source. (8) Sorry, can't read Spanish. ... these sources don't pass WP:CITE in the least. -- Drostie02:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...What are you warning me of, exactly? And, I mean, Wikipedia is more tolerant than that -- blatant vandals get three or so warnings before they get blocked for a short while. Surely my use of the words "freaking" and "dodo" is no worse than intentional vandalism...? ...Also, I managed to use a news proxy to look at (5). It has absolutely nothing to do with David DeAngelo in the least. The term "Double your dating" in the title is there because hey, if a couples dates a couple, it's "double" the dating. Har har and whatnot. -- Drostie03:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking the phrase "In Spanish and not useful" form the article. If you can't understand Spanish, that's your misfortune. There is nothing that says sources have to be English-language. -- Black Falcon09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But again, I'd respond that they're not relevant enough to make the man notable. The first falls into a problem with WP:BIO: "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." The single sentence describing DeAngelo is not that sort of in-depth thing. And the other two are editorials -- one is a story about some romance novel that a woman is writing; the other is a guy talking about how interested he was in something DeAngelo wrote. Think about what we're looking for in a biography; what we're looking for from a notable source. What's DeAngelo's birthdate? His hometown? How do we know that his name is "Eben Pagan"? What's his pickup-success rate? What's the national average? How did he grow up? What has he contributed to the world? Remember, encyclopedias aren't designed to cover every guy out there on the internet with a website. Right now, this article is basically a detailed (but poorly sourced) article on his teachings in the field of dating. Nobody can say whether those teachings are useful, because no independent meticulous research has been done on that. All we know, is that there is some dude, who believes some things, has a website, and occasionally does private seminars that don't make it into the news. If he could back up his assertions, then maybe he'd be a great psychologist or sociologist. But right now, he's nothing of the sort -- and we don't have the sorts of news articles saying, "sociologist David DeAngelo revealed decisive proof today that attraction is caused by such-and-such." There is a certain character to notability. DeAngelo does not have that character. -- Drostie04:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assert he is more than "some dude". Like I said before, seduction is not a topic most researchers delve into, for obvious reasons. Only if you are part of the underground restricted-access seduction community (which it seems you are not) will you know the true extent of his followers - relative to the following of other community teachers. News articles mean nothing in comparison. Do you have personal reasons for having this article deleted? --Amit04:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No personal reasons -- I just want to see this encyclopedia kept up to standards. And if a subculture explicitly avoids being verifiable, then we must reject their articles for not fulfilling WP:V. But let's not pretend this is an "underground restricted-access seduction community" -- DeAngelo is running a web business trying to sell his unresearched unverifiable crap to anyone who will listen. There is not enough info about this man to write a good biographical article, because this man has not done enough to have any sort of worldwide reknown. He's not notable. And that's a fact. -- Drostie05:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you again to please not use POV words such as crap, etc. Anyway, would you be so inclined as to ever delete apparently non-notable Cornell related articles, such as:
None of them seem to have listed notable sources. If I were to AfD any or ALL of them - AND about a dozen more - right NOW - in the name of non-notability, how would you react? What would you have to say about the ones you couldn't defend with credible sources? I'm stating this in an attempt to reason by analogy. By calling David DeAngelo's work crap, you've proven that you've personal reasons to get this article deleted. --Amit05:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am tending to agree with you here, so you two take this a bit of friendly advice from two other editors to cool down the tone of your comments a little bit. Also I'm frankly somewhat disturbed that the nominator would go to such low behavour, it puts your entire AfD nomination into question. MathmoTalk06:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually be fine with deletions ot the Cornell Review, the Cornell Centrist, and the Cornell Moderator. The theory center article is a stub -- but the center itself is notable; and I'm sure you can e-mail them if you want a list of publications that make reference to their work. The Daily Sun is the only notable news paper at Cornell, and all of the undergraduates know it. -- Drostie19:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for an apparently genuine reply. Note, however, that in the strict sense, notability must be demonstrated in the same manner that you have insisted must hold for this article. Therefore, as popular as the Daily Sun may be, and as important as the Theory Center may be, if they both don't have third-party external sources listed, they are a candidate for deletion. Are you getting the analogy? Yes, of course you are. But then why are you mentioning asking undergrads - isn't that similar to asking members of the seduction community about who the gurus are? Do you see the hypocrisy? Also, note that there are a dozen other unsourced Cornell articles that can be deleted. Do you still insist upon your extreme strictness? - Perhaps I should just AFD Daily Sun and Theory Center to see how that goes. Whatever your answer, I have a plan.
I would also like to clarify that I have nothing personal against you, and I don't mean for this discussion to be heated. There's just no other way I see of going forward with this. --Amit20:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not saying that "The Cornell undergraduates know about the Sun, therefore it is notable." Rather, I'm saying that "The Cornell undergrads know that the other three newspapers are not notable, therefore they are clearly notable. As for the Sun's notability, I'm fairly sure that the Sun has won awards for journalistic excellence, and the like. They'd probably be happy to furnish you with such references; it's one of the oldest college papers in the world.
From my perspective, it's not just that DeAngelo is (imho, rather clearly) non-notable. It's that the last time this was up for deletion, people promised notability, they promised nice, third-party references, and there wasn't consensus either way -- the votes for "keep" and "delete" split the vote pattern. I feel like the end result was a sort of contingent keep -- "We'll keep this article around, but only so long as you make good on your promise to demonstrate notability and get this thing sourced." Several years later, it still hasn't happened.
You say: The Cornell undergrads know that the other three newspapers are not notable, therefore they are clearly notable. You therefore assert NOT(A)=A.
I'm sure The Daily Sun is a fine newspaper, but it's the responsibility of the editors of its WP article's editors to include acceptable third-party references, without which an AfD is probably not unjustified.
You said: let's not pretend this is an "underground restricted-access seduction community". Oh but a good part of it is. This part, in fact, is very large and popular once you get access to it. My point is that David DeAngelo is notable there.
You said a lot about how he is not very academic. In research there is a balance between how extensive your results are and how significant they are. I've had university professors talk about their research at length with the research often not being "rigorously statistically significant with very high confidence". The truth is that I don't mind that at all, and most would agree with me there. It's not your call to say that only rigorous publications have value. This ain't physics. From what I've often seen, sociologists performing rigorous research often tend to prove rather trivial things, like the chances of sex for women after alcohol consumption are higher than normal, or that yes women are proven to have longer relationships with men who are financially stable and not entirely broke - all that was very useful - bleh. From an academic perspective, the preliminary work done by David DeAngelo actually gives academic researchers something more influential to work on. Also something you should know that is that only a part of his materials are original - most are borrowed and well sourced.
I apologize about that; I appear to have misspoke. I meant "The Cornell undergraduates know that it is not notable, therefore it is not notable." That is, Cornell undergraduates may not be able to testify to a Cornell article's notability; but they can testify to its non-notability. Do you see my point?
Most articles on Wikipedia fail WP:CITE. (The ones that don't get promoted to FA.) Failing WP:CITE is only grounds for deletion if it's impossible to find enough sources to build a good encyclopedia article. And as far as I can tell, in this case, that's true.
In the sense that I'm using it, "notable" is not reflexive to a community. Quoting from WP:NOTE, the relevant Wikipedia policy, "Notability is not subjective... The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy." So even if a community believes a person is noteworthy (which is what I believe you're claiming), this does not mean that the person is notable.
You're right. It's not either of our call. Rather, it's Wikipedia's call -- and Wikipedia has made that call, in my favor. Wikipedia doesn't adhere to truth -- they adhere to verifiability; see WP:V for details. You're trying to say that you don't care whether DeAngelo's work is rigorous -- but Wikipedia does. It doesn't matter whether DeAngelo is right or not; and I never speculated either way on that. But either way, this article must pass WP:A: "Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand... The most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions." (Emphases mine. The "exceptions" mentioned will do you no good, because DeAngelo's writings don't pass those tests -- and they'd have to make up a majority of the article anyways, which is not allowed by the "exceptions" clause.)
I thank you for your reply and for reasoning this out. I think we have debated all that we can. What remains is to see how others play this out. Just a quick note: I might steal your gf using his non-notable techniques. After all, we go to the same school, and it wouldn't be terribly hard. (This also means I would never actually AfD The Daily Sun.) Cheers. --Amit03:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you don't have a gf of your own clearly means that his techniques don't work as well as he says. :-P Cheers to you as well. -- Drostie04:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With any luck, we'll soon have some independent confirmation of the measure of the work's effectiveness. Also, as you may know, I'm grad with long term geographical uncertainty. As for his work, I've reviewed but five percent of it. --Amit04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Having a gf or not is not an indicator of if the article should be kept. Personally I do have a gf, a totally awesome one to at that. However not everybody chooses to have one, there are certainly advantages to being single over having a gf and for a while before her I was of the view those advantages outweighed the negatives. Alternatively yet another view point is that Amit might have more than one, and plans to add another to his harem! Either which way, it is often up to the individual to choose to be single or not. At least that is the way it ought to be. Personally I would never ever be forced to be single or not. MathmoTalk04:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ding, carriage return) 3. Regarding notability, if a subset of the world shows that a subject is notable then that subject is notable. Because in the end, it is impossible for the entire world to have found a subject to be notable and thus we are always dealing with a subset of the world. Also additionally you claim that noteworthy and notable are not the same thing. To which I'll refer you to the opening sentence of WP:NOTE which you yourself referred to: Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted". MathmoTalk05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not how notability works. I am a prophet to a group of about half a dozen people. They consider me noteworthy. But I don't think that warrants a Wikipedia article. The opening sentence you quote is only eight days old as of right now; and may still require some revision -- but the rest of the article is crystal clear: Notability requires multiple reliable secondary sources. As I've been saying all this time, notability is really just an extension way to enforce Notability is a guideline to enforce the core policyofWikipedia:Attribution. WP:A says that it doesn't matter whether material is true or not; what matters is whether it's attributable to a reliable published source. The purpose of WP:BIO and WP:NOTE is to make sure that those reliable published sources exist before we go off on an article about this thing. When Cambridge publishes The Cambridge Companion to Seduction to go with their Companion to Atheism and Companion to Wittgenstein, well, then we can start covering DeAngelo's speculations on Wikipedia. But until we have something to write a biographical article with, a biographical article shouldn't be written. -- Drostie21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
noteworthy = notable, there are even references for that on WP:NOTE. You are still misunderstanding me, I'm using notability in the WP:NOTE sense and not whatever else you are thinking I'm meaning. So when a subset of the world has found a person to be notable then obviously they are notable. Because we are always dealing with subsets of the world anyway. So if your half dozen people had made you notable (according to WP:NOTE) then yes you would be notable. Lastly, we obviously do not have to wait for Cambridge University Press to publish a book on a topic before we can write an article on it. MathmoTalk03:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that the criterion for notability is simply "there are good secondary sources," not "these people think that the person is notable." That's why I'm distinguishing the term "noteworthy" -- as in literally, "worthy of notice," -- from "notable", which has a precise Wikipedia meaning. As I (mis-)typed in my last comment, notability is a guideline meant to ask the question, "Can WP:A be fulfilled?" -- and that's exactly what the question, "Is this notable?" means. And I still don't think we can write an article fulfilling WP:A. I really think that the few references so far found don't back up much, factually speaking. For example, I never got an answer to my question, "How do we know his real name is Eben Pagan?" The most that The Game will tell me is that the dude was a real-estate agent who teaches dating seminars that tell dudes to be "cocky funny." The American Chronicle expands this to "some dating-advice sites believe his writings will make you feel more confident." That's still only a stub article that we can write. -- Drostie02:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A stub article is better than no article. His notability has been asserted already. His real name and other such details are subject to finding sources. Until then, we go by the name he uses. Deleting him outright would mean ignoring the sources that we do have, ignoring his contributions to the seduction community, and branding him non-notable inspite of evidence which shows he is. Also, even if this doesn't seem relevant please bear with me, Drostie are you a deletionist?xC | ☎09:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: one of the more unusual references I've come across is this one, because it reviews David DeAngelo magazine for the PSP!! Didn't even know there are magazines for the PSP, then again I shouldn't really be surprised. Plus it seems was the most popular download on that site. MathmoTalk12:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look at that website again; that article is not from the American Chronicle. It's from AskDanAndJennifer.com. Even if it were from the American Chronicle, who the hell are they? -- Drostie20:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how long did you spend looking at that article... ?? The writers are from that other site, nothing wrong or unusual about that. Is common place that a writer will have their own site. As for "who the hell are they?" comment, that is not a reason they should be ignored. There is a lot you haven't heard of, for instance myself was just reading on wikipedia about a big affair involving a CIA leak. Never heard of it myself, most probably due to my geographical location but it is a big thing over there. Anyway, getting back on track.. the American Chronicle does have oversight from a board of editors. MathmoTalk05:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spent long enough to realize that this article could only be a good citation for the fact "Some people believe that DeAngelo's work makes you feel more confident" -- since that's the only mention that DeAngelo's work gets. And yes, this article is from the blog-ish site AskDanAndJennifer.com; as proof, you can find the original article here. Since it was an outsource to a third party blog, much like the comics or Dear Abby-ish columns in your normal paper, the American Chronicle likely did not do a thorough editorial review of their work. (And how do we know that the American Chronicle has this board of editors? It appears to be a web news service.) -- Drostie18:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no bloody way is this prat notable enough IMO. only a few of the references above are linked to him and most just mention him in passing. Id agree that he fails WP:BIO and WP:CITE. TSMonk13:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame how biased the views of people like you are, given the fact that such people usually know little if anything about depth of the content to talk with such confidence. Perhaps you should consider whether the words that you used (e.g. prat) apply more to yourself than to the subject. --Amit20:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And its very interesting that you make comments like that when you know absolutely nothing of my views on the topic, or my knowledge of this man. I have read many articles on the "seduction community" and DeAngelo and I consider the man an idiot. However, this has nothing to do with my decision to vote delete, I have stated my reasons above. As much as Im sure you feel that everyone who has a differing viewpoint to you is either wrong or an idiot, the nice thing about WP is that we can all air our own opinions, hopefully without some little child crying because they dont match his. Get off your high horse and shut up TSMonk22:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what you think. Just behave in an appropriate manner over here by not name-calling article subjects. Keep your emotions at home. I'll do the same. --Amit01:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only problem here is that the subject of sex/seduction is highly controversial and a spam/promo target. The article needs to be rewritten in NPV. STILL, this guy and his company are extremely influential. A search on Google for "Double Your Dating" returns close to HALF A MILLION hits. Notable enough for a WP entry. DutchSeduction21:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You seem to not understand what notability is. "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other." Do you see any criteria in that statement for "extremely influential"...? For "a search on Google"...? No, and for good reason. There are no secondary sources, and no good article fulfilling WP:A could possibly be written about this man. The dude is non-notable, and that's a fact. -- Drostie04:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whiny comments like those by Drostie above illustrate the problem perfectly. Once a subject receives more than HALF A MILLION entries in the Google search engine, a WP article might become useful to a substantial number of readers because "Double Your Dating" qualifies as an Internet meme of its own. And yet some people engage in a systematic campaign to remove the subject just because it is controversial or personally distasteful to them. They would do better to help improve the article than trying to engage in selective censorship. DutchSeduction19:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DeAngelo is a notable figure in the seduction community, which is a notable entity. I shall later go into why I think the seduction community is difficult to discuss on Wikipedia.
Comment: As per the above discussion, notability is not reflexive to a community. Though the community may be notable, not all noteworthy people in a notable community are notable. The real question is, are there reliable, independent secondary sources such that WP:A could be fulfilled? If not, then the article cannot be reasonably written. -- Drostie04:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What above "discussion"? I only see one comment by yourself. Plus I believe you probably incorrectly read what Sasuke Sarutobi was stating. In my view it is that he said David DeAngelo is notable, and that also he is part of notable community. Or in other words he said he is notable, and then made an additional statement afterwards. MathmoTalk05:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that comment was part of a discussion. In any case, DeAngelo's notability is precisely what's in question here. It doesn't help any of this to have people just saying "He is notable." Remember, AfD isn't a vote; and "notability" isn't based on the opinions of Wikipedia users. There have been no biographies of DeAngelo, nor a large academic (sociological) discussion in the peer-reviewed literature about his theories. He hasn't won any prominent sociology prizes. Without stuff like these, how are we supposed to write a good biographical encyclopedia article? -- Drostie18:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DeAngelo is a notable figure in the seduction community, and he is the author of several important books and videos for the community.
Comment I wouldn't question that DeAngelo is notable within the seduction community; he clearly is. That's not the question here, though. The questions are whether he's notable enough for his own article, and whether there is enough material extant to write a biographical article which can pass WP:A and WP:BLP. After digging through all the links, I'm willing to grant the former, sort of. The Orlando Sentinel article, along with a couple other passing references, is enough to establish that he's been regarded as an expert on seduction outside the seduction community. His case for notability is not as rock-solid as all the other persons on the list of "Notable members of the seduction community," all of whom have been the subject of reliable articles, but hey, some articles are harder to source than others. If the only question was one of notability, I'd change my vote. It's the latter question that I'm stuck on. Is David DeAngelo really a pseudonym? I'm quite sure it is. But where's the published biography? Is Eben Pagan his real name? Does he actually have a doctorate? What's it in? According to WP:BLP, we could not even assert that David DeAngelo is a pseudonym unless we had a reliable source. What needs to be remembered here is that the article in question is biographical, which means there are policies which must be followed. ObtuseAngle23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - The multiple sources (like those cited by Amit) are sufficiant in satsfying our notability guildlines. Controversial topic, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete an article. --Oakshade01:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. New ref: San Francisco Chronicle! It only makes a passing reference, but such passing references in multiple articles wouldn't have been made if the person was not notable.
Strong Keep His contribution to the seduction community is of wide note, his seminars teaching cocky comedy and body language are popular. Out of curiosity I signed up for his newsletter and then started looking about the net if he had anything other than the newsletter to brag about. Apparently he does. His company DYD now also publishes works of other authors - Carlos Xuma, to name one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xcentaur (talk • contribs) 08:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I'd also like to point out that within the seduction community, DD Style Mystery Juggler Ross, all of them are definitely notable. Now outside of that, DYD has columns on at least a dozen websites, like AskMen.com, Mystery has appeared in the newspapers half a dozen times, Style is a fixture on the celebrity circuits, for example the rumours involving his girlfriend Lisa and Robbie Williams were hyped out of proportion. There are just a few examples, many more exist. Deletion of DD's article signals that the community doesn't deserve space on WP, which is not the message we want to send out. Thanks xC | ☎08:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - primarily spam and self-promoting nonsense, but there do seem to be a few non-trivial sources. If the article is kept, needs a thorough NPOV rewrite. DWaterson14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling an article "spam" and "self-promoting nonsense" would be your own personal POV opinion? If not could you please explain to us why?? MathmoTalk17:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Mathmo: this is a place for discussing the article, if you could give us examples how the article is primarily spam and self-promoting nonsense, we would all be grateful. Also, sources are usually non-trivial, if they aren't, then they aren't sources. Just a thought. xC | ☎20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was RedirecttoCare2.—Quarl(talk) 2007-03-11 01:51Z
Does not seem to meet notability criteria of WP:BIO; the current references definitely don't support it. I did a search for references - most search hits seem to point back to this person's own website or to self-published sources such as blogs and online forums - there were a couple of publications there, but I'd never heard of them and was unable to establish any notability. RJASE1Talk00:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely against the deletion of this article. What does it accomplish? Who benefits? The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. Randomfrenchie00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable; a basic Google/Yahoo search seems to reveal not many other claims towards his notability from credible sources -- or from any source, for that matter, that aren't his own personal web-sites, blogs, etc. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent, third-party coverage to establish notability; and arguments based on the harmless nature of articles (articles don't kill people under ordinary circumstances) don't bring them any closer to meeting the necessary policies for maintaining Wikipedia as a useful website. ◄Zahakiel►00:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
. I am putting work in, for as long as it is in wiki, it is a Bio, and must have extra care taken per WP:BLP, but really do not think HE is notable. The article is 95% about the visit, not the person, so that is a failure of notability for the person, in my opinion. -- Avi 07:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
, I'm afraid. I'm still not sure that I would change my vote, and I won't, but for NK to put someone in cheirem for an anti-Zionist activity is pretty rare. -- Avi 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[16]](http://www.rantradio.com/pics/media/spinnov2000/spinnov2000big.jpg){kind=link}