Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 October 31

< October 30	November 1 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7 the article actively asserted non-notability. GRBerry 16:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Mirza Payame Ba'i

Original research, dubious "source", even a dubious subject (a unknown mystic who died in 1999? Rmhermen 00:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article, which states: "The above information was found handwritten in the corner of a page of a recently discovered Teheran Library book". Now that sounds to me like the hoaxiest hoax that ever hoaxed, but in any case it sure as heck isn't a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per A7. The article itself asserts non-notability, and there are no google results save for Wikipedia itself. I've put up a db-bio template even though there is already this AfD; this sort of article shouldn't be left up for the time it takes to go through the AfD process. --Philosophus ^T 04:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, hoax. Was it a school library book? If so, this is the very definition of something made up in school one day. ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 16:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sports injuries

Apparently TW has failed me. Let's see if I can re-state my original line of thinking: This article strikes me as un-encyclopedic. It was originally created by an anon way back in 2002 (!!), and lay dormant for two years. Since then, there's been activity, but even now, the article is little more than a lead-in telling us the blatantly obvious ("Sports injuries are injuries that are the result of playing sports"), then a lengthy "treatment" section that seems little more than a glorified how-to. If it were a more recent addition, I might lean towards WP:SOFIXIT, but seeing the edits from the past five years only reinforce my gut instinct that this article is hopeless. Action Jackson IV 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sports medicine, better article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup and Wikipedia has no deadline. Give it another five years or work on it yourself. None of this is any reason to delete. And the Sports medicine article is worse IMO. Colonel Warden 01:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the policy cites, but I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. If I could work on it myself, I wouldn't say that there's no hope for it. I'm saying that the lack of progress over five years reinforces my gut instinct - not creates a gut instinct. Sorry for the over-emphasis, but perhaps it'll help my point come across. Can you (or any keep !voter) explain to me why (or how) this article would be encyclopedic (and not merely a treatment how-to) - given that that what is and what isn't a sports injury is completely arbitrary? Anything I can think of would just as easily be placed in injury or sports. --Action Jackson IV 04:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A bad article is better than no article, on an encyclopedic topic, try nominating for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive if you want an article improved not AfD. KTo288 02:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Re-Write Valid subject, good base, needs improvement is all. -- Librarianofages 03:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep per all of the above. Artw 03:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable subject which I could see becoming a GA or even FA given enough time. Information could feasibly be sourced regarding statistics for injuries in different sports and levels of sports (eg school through professional level), whether changes in OHS policy have lead to a decrease in injuries over time (or not? i don't have the stats on hand). The article could list some famous people who have been injured playing sports, and include some quotes from the authorities about whether they think sport needs to be regulated to reduce injury. I'm sure I've heard this from some of our politicians (I'm Aussie). Naturally the sports industry would have a pretty good rebuttal to this absurd argument, which could also be included in the article. THE KING 09:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. jj137 (Talk) 15:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Why was this nominated? It is clearly an encyclopedia article but it needs to be tidied up and improved scope_creep 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non admin closure). Qst 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2XS FM

No assertion of Notability, was replaced in 2005 by some other station. Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count)

Keep. 2XS was notable as a licensed regional radio station that won awards and has history. It was ~~apparently bought and~~ rebranded as More FM Manawatu. More FM acknowledges the prominence of the old call sign and notability does not expire. Article needs to assert notability and provide better context. • Gene93k 02:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: 2XS is the old call sign for More FM Manawatu. Same owner, same format, new brand name. Non-WP:RS indicate that it is a regular #1 or #2 in its region. • Gene93k 11:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs expansion from its stub status but the subject is inherently notable. - Dravecky 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Radio Stations has been informed of this ongoing discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some defunct radio stations are of historical value (eg, first to transmit), but this one just seems like another commercial radio station that went under. Not notable. -- Mikeblas 08:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that I can't find references other than being nominated for some awards. Additionally, if the new station is the "same owner, same format" and was merely a rebranding, I don't see why it can't just be merged into the article under which the new station is listed. --Sesameball^Talk 17:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The station won awards. Clearly notable. scope_creep 17:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that the station won awards, it doesn't seem notable enough to be alone. Maybe merge it here: More_FM#Manawatu Malinaccier (talk • contribs • count) 21:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree the article needs some additional "meat" in the main content section, the list of awards and its status as a (former) established commercial radio station in New Zealand is enough to be notable. Weathermandan 02:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and possibly rename to More FM Manawatu. Full power broadcast stations are notable, and notability is not temporary. However, if the current station is the same as the previous station with merely a new name, then the station is not really "defunct" and it makes sense for there to be a single article about the station and its history, but the 2XS FM information should not be merged into article about the More FM network. This would be in line with current conventions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations#Modifying article titles for stations that change their station names. DHowell 22:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - invoking WP:CSD#G11 This article is being used as blatent advertising with a promotional mention on the subject's blog stating "Tom Landschof Strategic Networks and Strategic Networking featured on Wikipedia". --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Networking

This article is in a sordid state and feels like an ad. Marlith ^T/C 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This smells like original research and reads like an essay, but I am not familiar with the area and cannot vouch for the sources cited. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this link [1] indicates this stub was created to promote a management consultancy. Qualifies for Speedy Deletion under CSD 11.--Gavin Collins 02:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Clear-cut delete. -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Nulty

Non-notable actress with no major credits or awards. Clarityfiend 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only source of information is iMDB, no other notability. Not everyone on iMDB is notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bit actress in a handful of movies. Most relevant Google results seem to be the result of the Formosa press pack, and consist of no real content beyond a still photograph. --Action Jackson IV 00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dennisthe2. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of her work is redlinked, barley any notability. Cheers,Je t Lover (Report a mistake) 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete borderline on WP:N. JJL 02:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. TGreenburgPR 06:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Doctorfluffy 05:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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