- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nom in favour of merging. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dick Mastel
- Dick Mastel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. No assertion of notability beyond status as nominated candidate in provincial election, which falls short of standard in WP:BIO. No evidence of coverage in reliable third party sources. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Liberal Party candidates, 2008 Alberta provincial election per standard practice for unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know we did that at the provincial level. There being no apparent objections, I withdraw my nom. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nominator is a banned user. Raul654 (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Project Steve
- Project Steve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
NCSE publicity stunt with COI edits. About might (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE Non-notable publicity stunt tended by COI/NCSE members. About might (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Blindingly obvious speedy KEEP. "Project Steve" may or may not be a publicity stunt, but the WP article about it most certainly isn't. It's a notable topic. End of story. Snalwibma (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP COI edits are no reason for deletion? The article is important. Teapotgeorge (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
wow you guys have a lot of meat puppets.About might (talk) 08:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Keep; well-cited article passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Lara
- Richard Lara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Unpublished philosopher. The article claims he is running for congress, but there is no independent confirmation of that, so he is unlikely to be a major-party candidate. Chick Bowen 06:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; a professorship at a community college seems to be his greatest claim to fame, and that doesn't pass WP:PROF.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not yet notable as a professor or a politician.DGG (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very non-notable, possibly vanity. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. A Ph.D. and a community college teaching post are not enough for WP:PROF. As for the congress run: it's Dana Rohrabacher's district, Rohrbacher should win re-election easily, and it seems that his challenger will be Huntington Beach mayor Debbie Cook. So, whatever stage Lara's campaign reached, it's less than either of those two and not enough for notability either. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 15:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jared Nissim
- Jared Nissim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Conflict of interest - initial/main contributor appears to also be the subject, notability outside local area highly questionable. Dethme0w (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Lunch Club is well known in Boston, London and Dublin, aside from NYC, and there are several major news articles to prove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.51.87 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References in the article show notability. If there are issues with COI they should be fixed by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to keep. I met my wife at a Lunch Club event. While it is not a dating club, it makes it easy to get to know people when you move to a new city (as I did when moving to New York in 2002). I appreciate what Jared and his organization have done, and suggest the entry stay. - James Kotchold, NYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.133.25 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If "the Lunch Club" is the notable subject (which both "keep" editors are asserting, the article should be titled The Lunch Club. Have either "the Lunch Club", or for that matter, the founder Jared Nissim been the subject of verifiable, independent reliable sources?. I can't find any. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why not start by looking at the links in the article? They are from verifiable, independent reliable sources and discuss Jared Nissim's founding of two different enterprises, so it would be wrong to move the article to just one of those. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nissim isn't mentioned in several of those articles, but he's discussed extensively in others. Those that don't mention him do document the notability of his enterprises. As Phil Bridger notes, the individual seems to be known for two things and so moving this to "Lunch Club" would be inappropriate. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn below. No deletion opinions were raised. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 13:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kirari
- Kirari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC sufficiently to have a separate article. No sources. Barely any content for that matter. —Torc. (Talk.) 05:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My blood's "A" too. Does that excite you? No, I didn't think it would.
Delete. -- Hoary (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) ..... Correction: no, simple redirect to OICETS. Hoary (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Comment Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC (the Japanese wikipedia article lists a couple more songs, but I can't tell if any have charted). However, she might be borderline notable as an actor: she's had at least a handful of roles in live TV dramas plus a movie, though none of them seem to have been lead, and hosted a radio show, and if English language sources are to be believed (these aren't mention on ja:wiki), she's done voice acting for hentai anime. And that's as far as I can get -- someone who reads Japanese will have to take over tracking down sources. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, if the decision is to delete, the article should be replaced with a redirect to OICETS. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. Her cover of Toy Soldiers charted in Japan. Oricon's website is far from the easiest to navigate, but hopefully this link will work for anyone. (she's number 18). Neier (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That would clinch it: keep, passes WP:MUSIC 2. If you could add that to the article, with the source, that would be most useful. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - Can't blame me for nominating this though. :-) —Torc. (Talk.) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No blame at all -- definitely a good-faith nomination, given the state of the article and information available in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely no blame here – I'm not even sure if any google search could have turned up that nugget of info. I only remembered her because the confusion that formed in my head since the group Kiroro was popular at the same time her song came out (it was the theme for a tv series, which is how I heard it); combined with the fact that I knew I'd heard the song long ago in English... Neier (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P'yatyhatky, Vynohrad
- P'yatyhatky, Vynohrad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Yes, it's written like a travelog, but that's not the issue here. If it were, I'd fix it. The issue is that it's a 'part of a neighborhood'. Not a neighborhood, or anything larger and I don't think a part of a neighborhood is notable even by the strongest of inclusionist interpretation. If it were notable during Soviet time, there'd be some Google coverage, no matter what language. There's a wiki mirror farm in English and fewer results when searching all languages. Google Maps doesn't know it and no evidence of RS coverage. Travellingcari (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm all for keeping articles on small villages and significant neighbourhoods, but this seems to be just a field or two with a dirt track running through it. It's already perfectly well covered in the Vynohrad article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete; despite the hilarity value, articles on "the corner where I waited for a bus once" are taking things a bit far. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pallonji's
- Pallonji's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Brought this here since it doesn't appear A7 applies to products, even those that aren't widely available and most people haven't heard of. Shockingly enough google doesn't appear to have either and there's no evidence of notability for this drink created ~150 years ago. Travellingcari (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article doesn't exactly stand up for itself - "...many people living in Mumbai have never heard of it." Only reference is not reliable, and while this search appears to yield a couple results, none of those are reliable either, and the search quickly drops off into irrelevant land. These searches are even less useful. Non-notable, and no way to prove notability. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article even asserts that it is unknown locally. All I found was a few blog/forum posts.[1][2] [3] Although the Pallonji name is connected with an historically notable hotel and some 20th century business interests this drink doesn't seem notable. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep all per discussion below. Any potential copyvio issues may be taken up in the proper channels. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 12:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2002
- Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Also included in nomination:
- Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2003 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ultratop 40 number-one hits of 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Procedural nomination - the 2002 list was a contested WP:PROD by the author. Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics, and these pages are essentially a simplified duplication of the table at the sole reference, the Ultratop website. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It appears to be a summary of what songs were rated as #1 in Belgium during particular years, which is no less relevant than the Billboard Top 40 American songs. What music sells best is an indicator of national culture. The presentation could use some reform-- do we really need 52 entries for 11 songs? Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : as per Mandsford. No good reason given for the deletion. Europe22 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, the Billboard lists (such as Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2005) provide a bit more information as well as more songs - the peak position reached, number of weeks in the Top 10 - information which is not immediately available in one place on the Billboard site. The Ultratop lists nominated are listing only the very top hit, without providing any additional information. Were this an article and not a list, I'd put it up for copyvio. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio ? There is no list of # 1 on the site that was used as reference. Europe22 (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, let me clear this up... Belgium is divided in two "cultural regions", Flanders and Wallonia. As they are culturally different; Ultratop created two different album and singles chart for the regions. The list of number-one singles of Flanders article was already created, and everybody were using it as if they were the real number-one hit of Belgium, but it was wrong... So I completed the "List of number-one hits (Belgium)" section and added the Wallonia number-one singles. I included the references later because I forgot... That's it folks! Do whatever you think it's rightMcMare's (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Canley (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dick Parker
- Dick Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The book exists but the publisher is a vanity press. I find no coverage other than a calendar listing and no evidence this author passes WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Article could have been speedied; it doesn't even make a claim of notability. Jfire (talk) 01:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Michael WhiteT·C 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom, could have also used CSD A7. --Veritas (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)d[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Despite one "delete", a clear consensus of keeping is clearly shown, regardless of the fact that this was a possibly disruptive nomination. Any issues regarding the article's sources can be fixed easily. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bow High School
- Bow High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article's deletion was ended by a non-admin last time NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep For the second time, above and beyond the general consensus on the WP:Inherent notability of high schools, this article provides ample, independent reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete My school, a rival of Bow High School, had its article deleted for notability reasons. Our school is of similar notability to Bow High School, and I feel some consistency is in order. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Deleting articles out of spite or revenge is generally not considered within Wikipedia policy. I will be more than happy to recreate the article for your school, but I don't see any such article deleted via AfD. Given the ample reliable and verifiable sources available for high schools it's hard to understand why this or any other such article should be considered for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete High schools are NOT inherently notable, and no guideline or policy says that. This article is sourced, but nothing about this school says that it is notable. So it may pass WP:V, but it fails WP:N. TJ Spyke 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - actually there is something notable - the out of the ordinary number of state championships. BTW though the figure of 27 is uncited, 25 of them can be sourced - I'm looking for the other 2! TerriersFan (talk) 04:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep ...again. Notable with sources. Your school's article being deleted is not a reason to delete this one. --Onorem♠Dil 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a reason. It is an example of Wikipedia's precedent for such cases. You may want to familiarize yourself with the situation before hastily casting a vote. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nomination by single purpose account only involved with previous AfD only just closed today and most likely sock puppet of blocked user. Otherwise article survives WP:N as it has plenty of WP:RS.Sting au Buzz Me... 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a sock puppet and do not accuse me of being a sock puppet. You should remember to assume good faith. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should also note that the previous AfD was closed by a non-admin. I would have posted my views in that AfD but was unable to because of that non-admin. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have blocked this user as a likely sockpuppet of User:Dimension31 who is currently blocked for the 3RR violations on the article. Metros (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You should also note that the previous AfD was closed by a non-admin. I would have posted my views in that AfD but was unable to because of that non-admin. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a sock puppet and do not accuse me of being a sock puppet. You should remember to assume good faith. NHWrestler103 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although there there may not be a formal policy/guidline for this, there is WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common outcomes#Education which does point to most schools as having WP:N--Pmedema (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 03:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I took a quick scan through Google News and found numerous references to the school. Notability would be easy to establish, even if you assume that it hasn't already been established in the article. At best this is a case of a notable topic in need of some development. At worst it looks like a highly questionable nomination. Bilby (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (neither strongly nor speedily nor snowily). There are certainly sources out there to write this article in an encyclopedic fashion [4]. The ones cited in the article are hardly "ample, independent reliable and verifiable"; #1 is a directory entry, #2-5, #8-9, and #11, are self-published, #6 is from the parent organisation, #7, #11, and #13 are from the local paper in a town of 7000 people, and #12 and #14 are trivial mentions. However, that's an editing issue. cab (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I go to this school and our school is not especially notable. We're pretty much the same as another other New England public school. Hrseydrssg93 (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy close as a WP:POINT violation. I am the user who closed the last AfD 2 hours ago, which was clearly a snowball keep. The nomination here does not provide an adequate reason to delete, the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet SPA, the discussion here and last time both established sufficient reason not to delete the article, and the article easily meets the general notability guideline as well as the proposed guideline for schools. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - multiple sources and an exceptional range of state championships so the article easily meets WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and the nominator will cease wasting our time. If you thought that the last nom was closed improperly you should have brought your case to WP:DRV. But please read non-admin closure first. --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patel Conservatory Youth Orchestra (PCYO)
- Patel Conservatory Youth Orchestra (PCYO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No evidence of notability of the orchestra and ghits are primarily performance dates. Per WP:CORP, "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found." Travellingcari (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC) adding the following for the same reason:[reply]
- Pinellas Youth Symphony (PYS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Both articles created by the same account although there's no obvious COI. Travellingcari (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both: I saw these pages early on, and was considering prodding them, but ended up just putting notability tags in hopes that they might be improved, or somehow referenced. I ended up forgetting about them, and since then the tags have been removed by anonymous IPs, and the articles are still the same. These articles fail to explain the importance of their subjects, and with a quick look around I cannot find any good references or media coverage on the subject. Danski14(talk) 02:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Hardly assess any importance, the only coverage I found relates to The Florida Orchestra that seems to be awarding scholarships to their members.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yacøpsæ
- Yacøpsæ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Overall, I believe it fails WP:MUSIC. Google seaches do yield some hits, but most of them are to the wkipedia article or the band's homepage/other pages. The article was, in the beginning, copied and pasted directly from the bio section on the website. That was cleaned up a bit, but there are still good chunks of copied material. Also, this page is very, very poorly written.(see the album section) I cannot find sites that review this band. I can find some sites that sell their music, but that does not constitute notability. Delete Undeath (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cleaned it up a lot when it was first created, but I don't think it's notable. It's a little harder to tell with foreign bands, but I still think it fails WP:MUSIC. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 14:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:MUSIC --Orange Mike | Talk 17:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The discussion below notes sources sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements and additional expansion since the start of the AfD. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 12:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10
- Panasonic Lumix DMC-L10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
{{prod}} removed with a long explanation on the talk page. The article remains almost completely unreferenced, and reads like an advertisement. There's no claim to notabiltiy in the article itself, and the article itself mentions none of the points raised on the talk page. Wikipedia is not a digital camera catalog, and Wikipedia is not a catalog of Panasonic products. Mikeblas (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the WikiProject Photography talk page. — Becksguy (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useable content to Lumix. Although that article is in need of some attention, it seems a logical home for the product listings. Travellingcari (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Claims notability and has sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or preferably merge + redirect to Lumix - it is one of the better sourced digicam articles. Merging would be the best option and deletion would be harsh. I don't think however that it was a PRODable article as the deletion of these articles are fairly controversial. EJF (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure what set of articles is in "these articles", but many have been deleted without being contested. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am referring to articles such as those on, for example, digital cameras and mobile phones, as these often would be considered controversial deletions; a probable reason that many have not been contested is that they have not been given the 'publicity' of an AfD process. EJF (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure what set of articles is in "these articles", but many have been deleted without being contested. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - and object to procedure. The article was tagged with {{prod}} on 12 Feb. 2008. The {{prod}} tag specifies, "... You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason. To avoid confusion, it helps to explain why you object to the deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." (My emphasis) On 15 Feb. 2008 I did just that, I removed the {{prod}} tag and I wrote a detailed explanation why I thought the article should not be deleted. I even requested to be notified if it was really necessary for me to work on the article to avoid its deletion. Instead, the article was nominated for deletion on 18 Feb., and my following the rules is now ridiculed as "... {{prod}} removed with a long explanation on the talk page...". Hope it can be understood that this is not appreciated by an editor who is trying to improve Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that this AfD be canceled, and I'll do what I can to improve the article, OK? Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you object to the AfD procedure, I think the best place to start is the Wikipedia Village Pump. I don't think the processes is likely to change. The article is up for AfD because it's not your opinion alone that prevents it from being deleted. The sentence you quote is written as a plain statement of fact, and includes a link so others can read your explanation. The decision to interpret it negatively is entirely your own. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At first I was going to let this drop, but I find that after several days I'm still very irritated, so here goes. When I say "object to procedure", what I (obviously?) mean is that I object to the specific procedure used in this AfD, and the parallel one for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1. The editor who placed {{prod}} tags on these two articles apparently did so in bad faith, as he then moved on to AfD irrespective of input generated by the {{prod}} tagging. If this was the intention then it would have been better to simply AfD the article from the start. I find it very difficult to believe that this way of doing things can be consistent with Wikipedia policy, as it is quite counter-productive for good faith editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia, in which category I would like to place myself, and would hope that my profile and history confirms. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to WP:DP, the procedure followed here is correct. {{prod}} is for deletions that aren't contested. I didn't anticipate any contest as many other articles about cameras have been deleted without contest. Once the prod was contested, I tagged the article for discussion about deletion, which is AfD. That processes lets both sides be heard. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OK, now that I've (finally) read WP:DP I will offer an apology.
- I do have one suggestion though. I think the text displayed by the {{prod}} tag should be changed. The current text implies that by objecting to the deletion you avoid the article being AfD'd, while in fact the opposite is the case! --RenniePet (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm glad you've calmed down. I'm not in control of the messages in the templates. If ou'd like them to change, you might start at Wikipedia:Village pump or at the talk page for the template, Template talk:Prod. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. According to WP:DP, the procedure followed here is correct. {{prod}} is for deletions that aren't contested. I didn't anticipate any contest as many other articles about cameras have been deleted without contest. Once the prod was contested, I tagged the article for discussion about deletion, which is AfD. That processes lets both sides be heard. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At first I was going to let this drop, but I find that after several days I'm still very irritated, so here goes. When I say "object to procedure", what I (obviously?) mean is that I object to the specific procedure used in this AfD, and the parallel one for the Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1. The editor who placed {{prod}} tags on these two articles apparently did so in bad faith, as he then moved on to AfD irrespective of input generated by the {{prod}} tagging. If this was the intention then it would have been better to simply AfD the article from the start. I find it very difficult to believe that this way of doing things can be consistent with Wikipedia policy, as it is quite counter-productive for good faith editors who are trying to improve Wikipedia, in which category I would like to place myself, and would hope that my profile and history confirms. Thanks. --RenniePet (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you object to the AfD procedure, I think the best place to start is the Wikipedia Village Pump. I don't think the processes is likely to change. The article is up for AfD because it's not your opinion alone that prevents it from being deleted. The sentence you quote is written as a plain statement of fact, and includes a link so others can read your explanation. The decision to interpret it negatively is entirely your own. -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a major product with sufficient product reviews available for sourcing. DGG (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Using reviews as sources, we'll never be able to write an article that itself isn't a review. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And? Like, reviews can be fascinating and contain insightful information that determines what it's all about. A review is a source of information, and if you want you can consider any reference work to be a review. A history book is a review of a period of history.
- If it makes a difference to the outcome of this AfD, I can spend another 1 1/2 hours rewriting and expanding this article, like I did with Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1. But I really don't see why it should be necessary (and I really don't have the time). --RenniePet (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And, Wikipedia is not a directory. If all that can be written is a review, the product is not notable enough to have its own article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've now done a rewrite of the article. Hope this helps. (More references would be nice.) --RenniePet (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I see no problem with the article. Notable product with references added. --Tone 17:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has been nicely expanded by RenniePet and additional references added. And there is a news reference here. Satisfies notability per sufficient reliable sources. The nominator's directory argument does not apply, as anyone and anything is a entry in a directory of some kind and WP:NOT#DIR applies to entries with absolutely no other significance. As an example of a misapplication of that concept, all articles on cars, such as the famous Ford Mustang or the Model T should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory of automobiles. Reviews are perfectly good sources as they, per WP:N provide ...significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and they are used in other articles. And other camera articles got deleted under the radar. — Becksguy (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. John254 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Defense of Global Capitalism
- In Defense of Global Capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Author's subject biography is nominated for deletion, on the basis of failing to meet criteria of notability. Further, as far as this particular article is concerned, a Timbro publication -- or any think tank publication, for that matter -- generally doesn't merit its own article as it's essentially a privately-funded publication, not an academic or even a commercial publication. This article exists as an artificial way to manufacture notability for the book. J.R. Hercules (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable publication on a notable think tank. The think tank itself has notable authors under it as well. Undeath (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although we should have better documentation of the awards and reception. Like it or not this book is all the rage in the libertarian/economic-conservative community and it's trivial to find coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, definitely notable book that has been the subject of much debate and awards. /Slarre (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability is established. Janm67 (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There appear from the books website to be reviews, but they need to be cited from the original publications involved. Awards are mentioned--but what are they? DGG (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per Snow/Speedy Keep - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johan Norberg
- Johan Norberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable person whose subject article here is an artificial attempt to manufacture notability. This is essentially a vanity bio. Fails the criteria detailed in WP:Prof, as the "honors" awarded to the subject were handed out simply by his think-tank colleagues and/or employers and publisher, NOT by independent academics or authorities. J.R. Hercules (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has recieved an award for a published work. That constitutes notability. Undeath (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A bit of due diligence on the part of the nominator would have turned up multiple articles in multiple English-language publications setting aside whatever Swedish-language notability he has. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ample news on him, scholarly articles referencing him and books referring to his work - Peripitus (Talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep This has got to be one of the most preposterous nominations I've seen in a long time. Johan Norberg is today probobly the most recognized Swedish political writer internationally, and a well known advocate of capitalism and liberalism. Please do at least some basic research before nominating an article like this. /Slarre (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep What Slarre said. Janm67 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep as a reasonable fork. As editors said, the main article section that this was split from needs to be shortened, but that is just a matter for editing. This title seems to be a well-sourced and accurate name for the article, given its content. It was not split off to create a different POV space, as the nom says it is word-for-word (aka faithful) reproduction of it's parent equivalent. And yes, the closing admin can read rather than count, but in this case the result was the same either way. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946)
- Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The article is a word for word verbatim copy/paste of the section from the Treatment of Polish citizens under Soviet occupation of the Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) article, thus nothing but a blatant POV-fork pasted exactly word for word from another article under a more POVed title. Irpen 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject is obviously notable; there is a pl wiki equivalent; the article is well referenced. As I explained on article's talk it has been created per WP:SUMMARY; the occupaton article needs to be shortened, and this one expanded even further. The above nom is a sad case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, unfortunately.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, how can anybody ever come up with an idea of deleting such an important and factual article? There were Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles, just like there were Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (I would even rename this article into Soviet crimes against ethnic Poles). History cannot be changed according to some individual biases. Tymek (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Nazi article is split since we have Holocaust in Poland concentrating on Jews, and Nazi crimes deals with genocide of ethnic Poles. Soviets did not distinguish by race as much and many Jews, Ukrainians and Belorusians, former Polish citizens, suffered at their hand as well. Soviets concentrated on class (rich suffered, poor not so much).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Officially they did not distinguish by the race, but all data shows that Poles suffered much more in the Polish Eastern Borderlands than other nationalities. Tymek (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not disputing that, but it was not as clear as in the case of Germans. The Soviets did not want to eliminate ethnic Slavs or ethnic Poles; they were more into eliminating Polish culture and assimilating Poles into the Soviet state. For Nazis, a good Pole was a dead Pole. For Soviets, transforming them into homo sovieticus would do. Granted; there was a major shift into less anti-Polish policies after Sikorski-Mayski agreement of 1941 (see Amnesty for Polish citizens in USSR), and later, after in 1944 Stalin decided to create a Polish puppet state; the policies of 1939-1941 were probably the hardest (vide Katyn massacre and so on).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, checking sources about Soviet occupation of eastern Poland between 1939 and 1941 I would say that their task, in cooperation with the Germans, was to eliminate ethnic Poles completely. After 1944 it was different, they wanted to keep Poland as a puppet state, this is true. Anyway, we are deviating from the subject. Tymek (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Tymek here, scholars studying the problem do point that that ethnic extermination of Polish nation stopped only in 1941 with Nazi invasion and the need to exploit Polish population as resource during the war. I would rename the article Soviet crimes against ethnic Poles, as Polish minority was repressed before 1939 in Soviet Union and after 1946.--Molobo (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, checking sources about Soviet occupation of eastern Poland between 1939 and 1941 I would say that their task, in cooperation with the Germans, was to eliminate ethnic Poles completely. After 1944 it was different, they wanted to keep Poland as a puppet state, this is true. Anyway, we are deviating from the subject. Tymek (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not disputing that, but it was not as clear as in the case of Germans. The Soviets did not want to eliminate ethnic Slavs or ethnic Poles; they were more into eliminating Polish culture and assimilating Poles into the Soviet state. For Nazis, a good Pole was a dead Pole. For Soviets, transforming them into homo sovieticus would do. Granted; there was a major shift into less anti-Polish policies after Sikorski-Mayski agreement of 1941 (see Amnesty for Polish citizens in USSR), and later, after in 1944 Stalin decided to create a Polish puppet state; the policies of 1939-1941 were probably the hardest (vide Katyn massacre and so on).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Officially they did not distinguish by the race, but all data shows that Poles suffered much more in the Polish Eastern Borderlands than other nationalities. Tymek (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I can see nothing wrong with the plan Piotrus has laid out. It is an extremely notable and important article, and Piotrus has created it in line with WP:SUMMARY. However, If someone can show me how the current title violates WP:UE or WP:NCGN, then of course it should be deleted immediately, and Piotrus should be blocked forever! Ostap 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is well sourced, and subject is notable (as notable as this one). Moreover, the article exists on Polish wikipedia. Puark (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on the votes above. I am not saying that the article discusses an non-notable info. Neither that it is unreferenced. The problem is its being a classical POV fork - an exact text pasted from an existing article under a more POVed title. If someone pastes a half of History of Jews in Poland into a new article and titles in Polish Antisemitism that new article would also be "referenced", present valid content and "sourced". Still it would be a POV-fork. --Irpen 21:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of labeling editorial actions "classic" this or that which you don't approve of and passing summary judgement, consider giving things some time to develop. I certainly agree that one should not have a verbatim copy of content in two places--but the difference is that I don't immediately take that as being the intent and end product and then act on a basis of assuming POV-pushing. Perhaps we can yet agree on a less combative 2008? —PētersV (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Expand and Rename Valid article, expand on attempts to destroy Polish minority in Soviet Union after 1920 till 1939, and repressions against Poles after 1946. Rename to Soviet crimes against ethnic Poles, just as Nazi crimes against ethnic Pols article.--Molobo (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see this as a POV fork but as expansion. I am not 100% happy with the title but "repression" seems to be a more neutral word than "crimes" (particularly in the absence of any legal framework for labeling them as such). It would seem necessary to show what exactly is POV about the topic, and I don't see that it is or that it veers away from the parent article in a significant fashion. We're not paper -- we can expand and calve articles as long as there are sources to guide us. --Dhartung | Talk 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Perhaps we could allow editors some time to move and adjust content and summarize the original in the parent before we go around pouncing and nominating stuff for deletion? This sort of chewing up of editors' time to respond to yet another thing somewhere instead of working on content doesn't contribute to WP. Just a thought. —PētersV (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. To Irpen: It took you less than 24 hours after the initial article creation for you to nominate for deletion. And you nominated it for deletion a mere minute after you posted your first comment to the article's talk page. That would lead an impartial observer to conclude that you're monitoring Piotrus' editing and, more to the point, that you had no intent to actually discuss anything on the talk page (as in, await an explanation), you were merely rendering your verdict (of bad faith). I was rather hoping for a more positive 2008. —PētersV (talk) 02:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC) It's not too late, you can always withdraw the AfD. —PētersV (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to respond to this vicious attack by Vecrumba unleashed despite I said publicly many times that I am not monitoring Piotrus' editing. As a matter of principle I never click on his contributions link. Never! While he follows my edits everywhere adding whatever he can find to his diffs-dump, which he maintains to this day, I do not reciprocate this favor. Here is one of the places where I went on record on my approach to these matters. Last time when the issue of stalking was resurrected by Piotrus himself, even he was satisfied with the answer. Here the situation is exactly the same. The new article got linked by Piotrus himself to an article of which I was one of the major editors both at its current location and at the location of its mother article. There is nothing more to add to that except Vecrumba may want to apologize for accusing me of stalking and plain bad faith. As for the article, I only nominated it because it is a classical POV-fork not because it is "unimportant", or "sourced" as some here assert. --Irpen 04:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, Irpen! I was explaining what it looks like. That you nominate for deletion a minute after posting your first comment can lead one to believe you seek conflict, not consensus. You say you were not following, that is fine. I just don't nominate for deletion without first engaging in a meaningful discussion. Please put the sabre away. I have no desire to spend 2008 the way we spent 2007. The choice is yours.
- "Vicious attack by Vecrumba?" You might examine whether you're rather taking this personally as opposed to a mere observation. You might consider what I stated more dispassionately. Again, I stated how it appears, not how it is. You clearly feel you are being personally set upon. Pretend the comment didn't come from me and consider the timings of your editorial choices and what their rather pointed absence of dialog imply. What we are having here is not dialog, discussions on AfD are already conflict resolution. This is not a substitute for discussing article worthiness on a talk page. —PētersV (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename to more trendy idiom such as: Red Holocaust Rising (Poland under Soviet occupation 1939-1946) if not satisfied with the article title. The content is thoroughly notable and unpretentious in comparison to the Jewish paranoia regarding such wording as "holocaust", "apartheid", "anti-semitism", etc. greg park avenue (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely no chance of having this being deleted of course, as most of the people attracted to voting here will wish its content to be retained. Well, it'd be retained anyway, as it already exists in another article, where it is not flagged in the same POV-way. But I guess having it in one place in a semi-neutral manner isn't enough! Another lamb of neutrality sacrificed on the wikipedia altar to the nationalist god of victimhood. Everyone these days wants to be a victim of something; for Eastern Europe more than anywhere perhaps, victimhood is being cultivated on wikipedia by people with no or little direct experience of it claiming it through the constructed medium of national identity, with no regard for WP:NPOV, WP:SYN or POV-forking. Most of the eastern European articles of this type promote victimhood or visions of a larger state (e.g. Partitions of Poland articles, Polish minorities in areas that "used to be [and ought to be?] Polish", etc), and that's not just Polish articles. Sad for me is that I love Poland and Polish history, but all I'll get for this vote is dislike from many Polish users. For what it's worth, I'd be just as against British repressions of Scottish Highlanders or British repressions of the Irish. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Everyone these days wants to be a victim of something - what a ridicuous remark, written by an otherwise experienced editor. Let me remind you this is about facts, not about wishes. Hundreds of thousands of Poles died in Soviet hands, and nobody is promoting victimhood. These events need a description. How about deleting Holocaust-related articles? Why don't you give it a try? In this context, your alleged love of Poland is really dubious Tymek (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I don't get your point. The material already exists on wikipedia! And what a surprise the Holocaust is brought up, the Jules Rimet Trophy of ethnic victimhood ... and of course perfect affirmation of Godwin's law. Yeah, you've really made my comments look ridiculous! ;) Along with the Holocaust comes Holocaust Denial, or H. D., also standing for Holodomor denial on wikipedia since a few months ago; same kinda thing ... you see it's not just Polish articles where this kind of thing comes up, so don't feel too persecuted! And I refer you to my previous comments, I'd be just as against British repressions of Scottish Highlanders or British repressions of the Irish. The articles we have about the Holocaust of course aren't in violation of WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, and WP:POV-forking, and as that's the case I don't see what your point is. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Everyone these days wants to be a victim of something - what a ridicuous remark, written by an otherwise experienced editor. Let me remind you this is about facts, not about wishes. Hundreds of thousands of Poles died in Soviet hands, and nobody is promoting victimhood. These events need a description. How about deleting Holocaust-related articles? Why don't you give it a try? In this context, your alleged love of Poland is really dubious Tymek (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where you are getting this ethnic angle from, the article under discussion is about repression of Polish citizens, i.e. a political/legal concept. Recall Felix Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the NKVD, the tool of Soviet repression, was an ethnic Pole. The repression was politically based, not ethnic. Martintg (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as my own comments are concerned, I don't see why any of that matters ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Martintg, let me just remind you that Dzerzhinsky died in 1926, and this article describes later events. Deacon of Pndapetzim - your theoretical speculations are very interesting, but as articles British repressions of Scottish Highlanders and British repressions of the Irish do not exist, get to work and delete this [8]. Also, your remark Polish minorities in areas that "used to be [and ought to be?] Polish" was very helpful, so please delete British Empire, as this is about areas that used to be British. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A notable and encyclopedic subject. The article is nicely sourced and illustrated. Such articles should be written about all countries occupied by the Soviet Union. This can not be compared with British repressions because Soviet Union was a totalitarian country. I invite everyone to improve a more general article called Soviet political repressions. Biophys (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think it would be a good idea ... imagining when we have all the Soviet repression articles ... to have a "Soviet Repressions" template like the current "Soviet Occupations" template? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looking at the Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union, I think that would be a number of different templates. Templates are generally helpful, no matter what is their subject. They facilitate navigation in WP and look nice.Biophys (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take it that's a yes. Do you think Oppressions by the Soviet Union needs a different template from Oppressions in the Soviet Union? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a proper place to discuss templates. Soviet political repressions include repressions within the country and abroad, such as those conducted by SMERSH at the occupied territories. If you have any specific questions, you are welcome to discuss them at my talk page.Biophys (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this place is any more proper a place to invite everyone to improve a more general article called Soviet political repressions, yet that's what you did. But two wrongs don't make a right ... I was just wanting to establish how far you were prepared to go along that line of thinking. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a proper place to discuss templates. Soviet political repressions include repressions within the country and abroad, such as those conducted by SMERSH at the occupied territories. If you have any specific questions, you are welcome to discuss them at my talk page.Biophys (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take it that's a yes. Do you think Oppressions by the Soviet Union needs a different template from Oppressions in the Soviet Union? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looking at the Category:Political repression in the Soviet Union, I think that would be a number of different templates. Templates are generally helpful, no matter what is their subject. They facilitate navigation in WP and look nice.Biophys (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To reflect the old joke, I do hope that the closing admin can read rather than count. Relata refero (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All that had to happen is some meaningful dialog before the AfD was launched. But no, we jumped right into an AfD which was bound to run along party lines, rehash the same dialog regarding Soviet repressions, and not move opposing viewpoints any closer to consensus, just more time wasted on needless conflict. —PētersV (talk) 00:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And not meaningful dialogue before the article was created? Relata refero (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- All the closing admin has to do is to close it per WP:SNOW. Simple story.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The participants here seemed uncertain what to do with this article. This suggested a no consensus close was appropriate. But I decided to be bold and rename it, to replace the awkward "editor-in-chief" from the name with just "editor", as seems to be the convention. As part of that process, while updating all the wikilinks for the places where he is wikilinked from, it seemed kinda obvious to me that he has some level of notability, just from the sheer volume of mentions in other articles. So the "on the fence" nature of this argument along with my own "hunch" leaned me from no-consensus all the way over to keep. (It really did not matter, though, as both are technically keep outcomes). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Green (editor)
- Jeff Green (editor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Notability is neither asserted nor extant for this magazine editor and podcaster. JFlav (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not go far enough to establish notability (insufficient references); notability is not inhereted from magazine associated with this person (editorship of a notable magazine does not automatically convey notability). If this person is notable, references must bear it out. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a Wikipedia newbie who listens to video game podcasts and keeps up with the video game community through video game websites, magazines, podcasts, and forums, and I think that Jeff Green is popular within that community. What steps can I take to keep this article from being deleted? Modul8r (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, this article should only exist if Jeff Green is considered notable by Wikipedia's definition of notability. I sympathize with your position; I listen to the Brodio and I like Jeff Green. But being popular within a subculture isn't enough to make someone notable. That's why I put this article up for deletion. On the other hand, the whole point of going through the AfD process and gaining consensus about an article's fate is to figure out if this article does or does not fit Wikipedia's policies. By putting this article on AfD, I assert that I think Jeff Green isn't notable enough to have an article, but if you think he is notable and you can pull together independent, verifiable sources about him, then you'll always win. So to answer your question directly, to keep this article from being deleted you have to demonstrate that Jeff Green is actually notable in accordance with WP:N. If you can find good, verifiable, independent sources and put them into the article, it stays. JFlav (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Djsasso (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—It does appear that he is at least mentioned in quite a few independent sources although it is difficult to gauge if there is enough there, without accessing the full text of the articles. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A lot of those sources look like they're about Games for Windows, and just mentioning Jeff Green as the EIC. Others are articles in Computer Gaming World, another name for GFW, so hardly independent. To be fair, though, there are a couple links that may be worthwhile—this one from ABC News, for instance, quotes Green. Others are unclear: is a Gamasutra podcast interview enough for notability? JFlav (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found the following sources:
http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_green.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_greenII.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff_greenIII.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff-green-4.htm http://www.armchairempire.com/Interviews/jeff-green-5.htm
http://www.gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=2278 (called "an industry veteran")
http://www.gdcradio.net/2006/09/gdc_radio_presents_gamasutra_p_4.html
http://www.gdcradio.net/2006/09/gdc_radio_presents_gamasutra_p_4.html
Modul8r (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm honestly not sure what to do. We have news articles that solicited Green for quotes (ABC news, Red Herring, and The Arizona Republic), and several interviews listed above. However, those interviews are all from enthusiast press, i.e. websites about videogames. Is that enough to meet the notability criteria? I'm stumped. JFlav (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Hall Monitors
- The Hall Monitors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Name does not exist Whistlesgowhoo (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC) The student section has not been formally named "The Hall Monitors." Nothing in Assembly Hall has ever referred to the students as that name, and the closest name on the page that has been used is the "Crimson Crew."[reply]
Additionally, the article does not cite anything except a webpage intent on having the student section called "The Hall Monitors.Whistlesgowhoo (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
I completely agree. At games the student section is NEVER referred to as The Hall Monitors.156.56.200.115 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable source is offered to show the use of 'The Hall Monitors' name to refer to the members of the student section. All that is provided is a web page at http://iuplanet.com/hall_monitors, an unofficial site that seems to be promoting the use of the name. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 20:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Get Polson
- Get Polson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Movie does not appear to have seen any offline distribution. While it did have an article written about it in a paper,[9] it seems unlikely this film will be remembered in a couple of years time: Many hundreds of films are rejected by Tropfest every year. -- Mark Chovain 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless notability is asserted with verifiable reliable sources (not just a link to YouTube). Billscottbob (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above Zarboki (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there is of course no way that any of you could have known this, but the film was referenced by John Polson in a recent Triple J interview, and an audio segment will be posted shortly. There are also soon to be negotiations about having the film screened at Tropfest prior to the finalists' entries each year as a nod to all those who were not successful. The film is also being advertised in a major weekend paper on the 24th February (2008) which will boost the film's profile (has already achieved over 1,000 hits on Youtube).
Onlyadamantium (talk) 13:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per notability as indicated by the discussion below. Non-admin close. --jonny-mt 13:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Patinoarul Artificial
- Patinoarul Artificial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
While I have no doubt that language is an issue, I find no evidence this rink is in any way notable. It doesn't appear that a professional team uses this venue either. Travellingcari (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep; news.google.com doesn't have any Romanian papers. I suspect that just about every American arena that sits 5000 people has an article, with sources that detail who's been there and who plays there, and I'm sure if we had a good index to Romanian papers, we could do the same thing here. An arena that seats 5000 is generally notable, even if we're having trouble finding sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Apart from the other uses of this arena it is the home of HCM Galaţi[10] who play at the top level of Romanian ice hockey[11] (select the Romanian league from the drop down menu). Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 05:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agency 2.0
- Agency 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
First nomination was closed for lack of quorum, with only delete votes. This AfD should instead have been relisted. My initial nom read as follows: This is a neologism that was coined some two weeks ago. I initially tagged this one for speedy, but I had second thoughts. Still, Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of WP:N and no WP:RS; article itself suggests it's WP:NEO/WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced neologism. Don't know why it wasn't automatically re-listed for consensus rather than closed. Travellingcari (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete does not establish notability (insuff. independent references); new, unseasoned neologism. Also smells like a subtle marketing jab for Tri-Media Marketing Technologies, quote: "Becoming an 'agency 2.0' requires a typical advertising agency to move beyond standard offline media offerings and adapt the new technologies needed to address today’s media and Internet-savvy audience who demand faster, more personalized and even more relevant communications. . ." and so may be little more than clever WP:Spam --Pgagnon999 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Thinly veiled attempt at spamming Wikipedia using a new "industry buzzword". Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. As I read the opening sentence:
The term Agency 2.0 refers to the next generation of advertising and marketing agencies, and more specifically, to the new skill sets and business models that they must adopt in order to provide their clients with interactive marketing communications programs in today's more Internet savvy world.
I began to laugh out loud. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. and I don't understand why it was originally closed for "lack of quorom". Why wasn't just relisted like other afd's that don't get attention the first time around?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy - A5. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Royal progress
- Royal progress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
A page that has never been more than a definition and has been transwikied to the Wikitionary, but had it's prod objected to for no reason whatsoever by an anon IP. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; It's been transwikied and is just a dicdef. <3 bunny —Preceding comment was added at 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as dicdef. Personally, I don't see how it could be made an article; I'll watch for improvement over the next 5 days. JJL (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A5, page has been transwikied and author info recorded. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete -Djsasso (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ridin' (Mýa song)
- Ridin' (Mýa song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:MUSIC with a dash of WP:CRYSTAL. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Liberation (Mýa album), the album this song is from. Bláthnaid 15:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jj137 (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. The Redirect would be pointless because it's a non-searchable term. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is insane! We know that the album will someday be released and that this will be chosen at that time as the second single? No. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mere pertinent information and delete per above. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Delete Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non admin closure is not available with a delete result. Relisting to garner further consensus as it is not unanimous.
- Delete I think this is a little too soon for a song on an unreleased and unannounced album. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. Reverend X (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, leave redirects. Neıl ☎ 15:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cali Untouchable Radio
- Cali Untouchable Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The prod was contested. Mixtapes are not notable per WP:MUSIC. Tasc0 It's a zero! 06:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following related articles:
- Every Hoods the Same, Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Every Hoods the Same, Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Tasc0 It's a zero! 06:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I think the contesting at the prod must have been formulaic. Mixtapes are out. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: I guess mixtapes are not allowed on wikipedia, so I say redirect to the artist, Ice Cube. Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. These don't qualify under WP:MUSIC, but the artist is notable enough that I think redirect may be an appropriate handling. Alternatively, I'd !vote for deletion. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snowball hoax --Haemo (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandria's Genesis
- Alexandria's Genesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Alexandria's Genesis is a hoax, and was written by a Daria fanfic writer. Simple Google searching will prove that this isn't true. <3 bunny 01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as total hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. JJL (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
East Papago Traffic Interchange
- East Papago Traffic Interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Interchange is not named this; has no name at all Rko202 (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete G7. Author requested deletion (nom is page's author), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus -Djsasso (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calgary Independent Film Festival
- Calgary Independent Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not notable, seems to have been created as an advertisement.The Dominator (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --The Dominator (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There are many festivals, but not all of them are encyclopedic. Calgary certainly could host a major one, but the $100 Super8 film festival for locals? Toronto Film Festival, it ain't. The article does not offer any rationale for significance or notability. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as leftover (due to fixed double redirect) from previous RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/December_2005#December_27 Tikiwont (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pol Pot of Eelam
- Pol Pot of Eelam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is a redirect page that uses derogatory term to redirect to a WP:BLP. As it's a direct violation of WP:BLP this needs to be deletedWatchdogb (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so people know, a similar article Pol Pot of Tamil Eelam, was VfD'd for basically the same reasons a while back. --Haemo (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bow High School
- Bow High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article does not establish notability for school itself and lacks sufficient references. Dimension31 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Above and beyond the general consensus on the WP:Inherent notability of high schools, this article provides ample, independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - an exceptional number of state championships coupled with multiple sources shows clear meeting of WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and trout-slap nominator. All high Schools are notable. But if there was all of a sudden some mad rush to save server space and the office said we can only keep the real standouts, this one would still be kept. Article has ample, independent reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Quick Google search shows there;'s oodles more that could be added. Get your warm jackets out, there's Snow in the forecast. JERRY talk contribs 01:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —JERRY talk contribs 01:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep -- Sorry to snow on your parade... SeanMD80talk | contribs 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Africa time
- Africa time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Neologism; no reliable sources re WP:NEO Yamara ✉ 01:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not just a colloquialism[12][13] [14] but it is one that has entered politics and broader social discussions about modernization.[15][16] There are Google Books and Google Scholar hits showing that it has cultural or even linguistic roots (literally "no concept of time") and even an entire book on a somewhat broader topic that has extensive discussion. It's more commonly known as African time, though, so a move is advised. (Please use a search engine next time.) --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly used a search engine, and the first several dozen hits are to blogs and travel sites. As my comments on the talk page made clear, I have long been well aware there are unique aspects to the understanding of time in Africa. The collegian's travelogue and the American restaurant review you list would not meet the notability standards. The Telegraph reiterates the Reuters story the article is based on. The Zambia Times and Global Politician cites are very new, and did not appear when I searched on the 12th, though neither give much insight beyond using the colloquialism. Most interesting is the 1994 Adjaye book you cite, which relates the term "Colored People's Time" to "African-time" (p. 208) CPT is "not an inherent disrespect for punctuality". This is in contradiction to the use found in the article and certain of your Google finds. A new meaning is therefore a neologism. At the very least, the article is sufficiently flawed to be incorrect. Perhaps the article creators could please use the search engine themselves. —Yamara ✉ 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for suspecting you did no searching at all, but by (only just now) pointing me to your talk page comment there seems to be a large dollop of WP:IDONTLIKEIT: you say you're suspicious of any "positive" aspects of this phrase, but an encyclopedia doesn't care if it's positive or negative; we just document what secondary sources tell us. You also cite good old fashioned racial prejudice, although this does not begin to explain why Africans are using the phrase among themselves or in political campaigns to improve their productivity (or at least perceived productivity; see also similar campaigns in Spain and Mexico against the siesta). As for the Adjaye discussion, it is substantive and scholarly, providing a foundation for a full-fledged article. I have no idea why the fact that it contradicts something in the article means that the article should not exist -- this is clearly an editing and attribution issue. And it's good that you resorted to tags first, rather than AFD, but you only waited a few days. Do you really find that articles are fixed that quickly when you tag them? This seems unrealistic. --Dhartung | Talk 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment is followed by a larger dollop of NPOV: this doesn't mean the phrase isn't used, or can't be the subject of [an] article, but it has to have more depth than an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry. I presented a neologism here for WP:PROVEIT ("removed aggressively"), not repeated questions as to my capacities and motivations (which address nothing). I've just been involved in throwing a current Canadian politician's article off Wikipedia for lack of notability (and copyvio), so a neologism from a 4-month-old Ivorian campaign seemed questionable on that basis. "Africa time"—without the "n"—remains a questionable English neologism, (unlike the centuries-old Spanish noun la siesta). BTW, it's all well and good that you have begun to build acceptable cites for "African time" in the article; I'm pointing this out, so no one is taken by surprise before making any judgments
theyon this entry. —Yamara ✉ 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Odd word struck out--Yamara ✉ 15:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good faith nomination granted (I still think it was a pretty short time to wait, though). I really don't know where your idea that this term is just four months old comes from, especially since you say you did some searching. As for this petty distinction you're making between "Africa time" and "African time", please do consider my recommendation for a move. WP:SOFIXIT. --Dhartung | Talk 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment is followed by a larger dollop of NPOV: this doesn't mean the phrase isn't used, or can't be the subject of [an] article, but it has to have more depth than an Encyclopedia Dramatica entry. I presented a neologism here for WP:PROVEIT ("removed aggressively"), not repeated questions as to my capacities and motivations (which address nothing). I've just been involved in throwing a current Canadian politician's article off Wikipedia for lack of notability (and copyvio), so a neologism from a 4-month-old Ivorian campaign seemed questionable on that basis. "Africa time"—without the "n"—remains a questionable English neologism, (unlike the centuries-old Spanish noun la siesta). BTW, it's all well and good that you have begun to build acceptable cites for "African time" in the article; I'm pointing this out, so no one is taken by surprise before making any judgments
- This is a valid topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia. John Reaves 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "[A]n encyclopedia doesn't care if it's positive or negative" This is not true we has the WP:NPOV. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So we can't write about subjects where there's any sort of bias? How does the article violate NPOV? Please be specific. --Dhartung | Talk 23:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is not what I said. What I said was that all reputable encyclopedias care if the writing is positive or negative. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and I certainly did not imply that our writing should violate neutrality. The question was whether a term having (for example) only negative connotations belongs. Even if that were true of this, it would still belong because it is discussed in reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 09:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nom describes it as a neologism. It's not. Very widely used in Africa when I was there as a girl MANY years ago in the 1950s. It's a real and common phrase - perhaps not in North America, but certainly in Africa. 128,000 ghits. Some fair references in the article and it was used on Sky News just this moment! Anjouli (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. sources establish term's notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Africa is a continent, not a country. The vague, slightly patronizing, "Africa time" can gain a dictionary definition, but not in any sense an encyclopedia article. The latter would require a discussion of culture and such, and that cannot be done with a continent. I could write about Native Alaskan tribes and particular attitudes toward time in them, but I would be an idiot to try to make that "indigenous peoples of North America." That's what's going on here. Impossible. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a real phenomenon, with both some negative (esp. in the business world) and some positive (esp. on the personal level) associations. Sources are in place for both negative and positive connotations, even if links to blog posts have been removed. The first sentence is modified to be a more neutral description on the relaxed attitude to time, so that the article doesn't start with a negative tone. Geographically, this phenomenon seems to apply to several cultures in several parts of Africa (at least West and East Africa). While this does not mean every person, nor every culture, or even every country, it doesn't seem out of place to associate a term loosely to a continent. (A move to "African time" might be appropriate, though - I don't have an opinion on that.) Ingvald (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There were never any blog posts used as references in the article; I only mentioned them in my AFD comments. I would agree there are opportunities to change the wording. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete --Salix alba (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Evoke engine
Non-notable software, no claims of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 01:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Mel-O-Toons#Sparky's Magic Echo. This meets the delete and redirect suggestions, as well as provide a useful link to the Wikipedia material on Sparky's Magic Echo for any reader. Non-admin close SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 16:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Sparky's Magic EchoAfDs for this article:
This article is not notable; there are no citations or sources; and the article does not meet Wikipedia standards FeldBum (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was quick delete. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 06:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] The Blackout Tour
Looks like a hoax. No references...I've been checking the dates and the facilities...so far I've been able to find that the Bell Centre in Montreal is already booked for another event on the day of the "concert"...I also find it highly implausible that she would play in arenas all over the world, but only in a night club in Toronto...and play in Portugal a day and a half after playing in Quebec... SmashvilleBONK! 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Redirect to Scooter (stand-up), this meets both the delete and redirect suggestions, as well as provide a useful link to the Wikipedia material on Evo Powerboards for any reader. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Evo Powerboards
non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was userfy to let them post it to Tamil wiki. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] வாழ வழிகாட்டும் வள்ளலார் Vadalur Vallal Peruman
Needs to be translated in english.
- i should have posted it in tamillanguage, if we can move this to tamil sections will be nice instead of deleting, dont delete pls move it to tamil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamizan (talk • contribs)
The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#g1 Make your own money
Seems to be an article of a story or just a made-up conversation that is not notable. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete per CSD A1, no context. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] CJ Sayre
Nonsense Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Apparently a stub which is not in itself a reason for deleting, merging or redirecting it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Upper Orakzai
Not a notable place. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion under category G1. -- Denelson83 10:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Beach Day Out
Pure nonsense. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Radar Ray and the Creekbusters
Wikipedia isn't looking for a band who releases demos.
The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Permanent record studios
Non notable record label.
The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Narukami
Not a notable fictional character, but if somehow this page is kept, at least clean it up. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was protected redirect to Y-chromosomal Aaron. I have left the history of the article behind the redirect should any merging take place, although both this and the target article appear to suffer from original research issues at present. Neıl ☎ 15:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Cohen Modal Cluster HaplotypeI have refactored longer comments to the talk page to aid readability and make it easier to browse today's deletion discussions. That is not an assertion about the quality of the comments, merely the length. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Unnecessary fork. The topic of the CMH is already treated at Y-chromosomal Aaron, to which Cohen Modal Haplotype already points. That is the natural (indeed, inevitable) place for a full and detailed presentation of the CMH. This is an ill-concieved fork.
(long comment by Chriscohen refactored to talk page)
(further long comment refactored to talk page)
The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Darren J. Prior
The article is autobigraphical and appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:N and WP:V Lozleader (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 14:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 25Gs
Not having an IMDB entry is a red flag in terms of non-notability. Google isn't productive either. It's also unsourced vanispamcruftisement, see WP:COIN#25Gs. MER-C 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|