Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TenPoundHammer (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 7 August 2008 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weidman School of Economics. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 6 August 8 >

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 Redirected per TerriersFan, content has been merged already. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weidman School of Economics

Weidman School of Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be non-notable. Only source doesn't even mention a "Weidman school of economics". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:50, 7 August 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. This article does not meet notability criteria and thus has a serious problem. At the same time, numerous editors have expressed their opinion that this is an exceptional case where the GNG is insufficient as a test of notability and their opinions cannot be discounted here. Please note that this "no consensus" closure is not an endoresement of the status quo and interested editors should pursue a proper closure to the broader question of what the fate of this information is, whether that be through further researching and the addition of new sources, through the merging of this and similar "staple modern fantasy creatures" into a single article, or another solution. If the article's failing of current guidelines and/or policies is not remedied, there is no prejudice against a renomination in the near future. Shereth 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snotling

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of the plot of various Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 book and game plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how does this demonstrate notability (as defined by WP)? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No verification has taken place with this topic, no reliable sources presented, as usual it's a keep vote because....well, we just don't ever vote for deletion, regardless of a topics total lack of notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have argued to and even nominated to delete over fifty articles. I typed in "snotling" on Google Books. A word that gets multiple hits is sufficient verifiable (after all, it's books, not just websites) and notable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, how many of those books were published by companies other than Games Workshop, BL Publishing or other companies owned by GW? -- JediLofty UserTalk 08:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The more relevant question in this case might be, how many of these given in the linked search deal with the subject of the article in question? One of them has a comment to the effect "That guy in the Games Workshop tee shirt looked like a snotling, one of the figures made by Games Workshop." How is this substantial coverage? The others deal with Jewish/Yiddish poetry (getting exactly *one* hit for the word "snotling" in a poem), and one gets a hit because apparently there's a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling, and hence the hit is on the Beckett price guide to baseball cards. So again, how many of these deal with the subjecct of this article? --Craw-daddy | T | 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would be mistaken, as there is only one reference, and it doesn't establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google books shows more than one reference. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which have nothing at all to do with the article under discussion. For example, how does a baseball player named Chris Snotling have any bearing on a fictional creature called a Snotling???? How does a poem that uses the word Snotling once have any bearing on the subject of this article (which is a fictional race in a fantasy game from a game puclisher??? --Craw-daddy | T | 17:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They demonstrate that the term is one that at worst we can use to construct a disambugation page covering these various usages. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks multiple independent and reliable sources with substantial coverage. I opposevcreating an article about every character, place, device and event in a fictional work or a game franchise when it has no substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the game or a game guide associated with the publishers of the game. Edison (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop. The "references" (using the word loosely) in that Google books search are the very definition of "insubstantial".
  1. This one gives us "He looked like on of those Games Workshop creatures. A snotling. ... -- he looked like a snotling hedgehog with alopecia". And that's it.
  2. In this one we seem to find "A snotling peeked out from under her father's plate. Harmony watched in dread as her father cut into his strawberry ..." and "Maybe the snotling was trying to dig out from under the biscuit. If she could just squish it back down..." and nothing more.
  3. Here, here, and here we find the use of the word "snotling" exactly once in a poem (surprise, surprise, it's the same poem in three different books). So a single word in a 378 page book, or a 471 book (and another single word in a book of unknown page length). Pretty substantial, isn't it?
  4. This book also seems to have this word appear exactly once in it.
  5. Another book gives us " 'I did not hit you, you snotling' " as the sum total of its use of the word.
  6. We again find the word exactly once here and, though it's hard to tell from the online print source, it seems to be someone's name in a paper referenced in these conference proceedings.
  7. Finally, the last of the nine hits on the Google Book search is the Beckett Baseball Card Price Guide with, apparently, a baseball player by the name of Chris Snotling (I think). So no relevance to the subject of this article.
In other words, in no way does this constitute "substantial coverage" and claiming so is misleading and disingenuous. --Craw-daddy | T | 20:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are multiple references in published books that constitute substantial coverage of the word "snotling" in some capacity and saying they aren't is misleading and disingenuous. I am arguing that the article should not be redlinked as the word and its use is verifiable in some capacity whether it's the contents of the article or for a dramatic rewrite of the article. I see nothing to convince me that we can't use these sources to have some kind of article on "snotling" whatever that may be. It's not a word a wikipedian just made up. And even in the context used here, they are verfiable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those should go, too, right? They are just as invalid as snotlings are. Just go to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures and PROD them all, with this debate as jurisprudence. It wouldn't be fair to keep those. Let's at least be consistent. Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they should all stay. There's no legitimate reason why a paperless encyclopedia would not at worst redirect without deleting these articles. Don't dwell on the disputed and subjective concept of notability. If at worst, WP:IGNOREALLRULES, as the most important thing is for us to be a comprehensive reference guide that gives our community of readers and editors what it wants. As such outright deleting this verifiable article that appears in various incarnations that several editors clearly believe is notable (something that has diverse use, receives multiple keep arguments, and can be verified is notable by any logical standard anyway) would hinder our ability to improve Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they should stay. One of the coolest things about wikipedia is being able to read up on almost any random, valid topic! Stijndon (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Now that the relevant projects are finally serious about respecting the encyclopedia's standards for notability, I expect that those listed which don't have significant coverage in independent third-party sources will gradually be removed. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primary sources can be used for verification, but not to establish notability. No notability is established through independent third-party sources, because they don't exist. Although I have to say that it is beyond awesome that there is on Earth a man named Chris Snotling. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Isn't the fact that loads of people feel the urge to post pictures of their snotlings on the web a form of notability? This is really a question, not some attempt to make a point. I would guess it is - so why isn't it? Stijndon (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is to any reasonable person. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Note to self: Maybe I'm not "reasonable"...) I think it's really more vanity/showing off (in a sense), along the lines of "Look at these miniatures I've painted, aren't they swell!" It's not so much that they are pictures of snotlings, or any other creature/beast/man/tank/spaceship/etc, but people showing their painting skills that might happen to be on those models (maybe they *like* the models, but that's immaterial). Some of these types of postings are really "how-to" guides, i.e. "here's how I painted my figures" and are instructional material on painting techniques. There are plenty of "how-to" guides about how to build your own scenery for wargames (with plenty of accompanying pictures), but do articles about how to build bombed-out buildings or tank traps contribute to notability for "Ruins" or "Tank traps"? (And, of course, you should filter out all of the eBay (and other auction) listings as those don't "count" for notability as obviously people display their pictures to flog their wares.) Of course this is my opinion and yours may vary. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So how can any modern fictional thing now be notable? Is there any justification for an article on warhammer at all? Its article is a mix of blatant advertising (wrong), how to play (WP:not-a-manual) and copyright infringement, filled up with non-notable things. I find it flabbergasting that an article on snotlings is so strongly opposed, whereas it is obvious that a large group of people may eventually want to read it ("Oh look, it's linked! Let's check it out real quick." And I meant the cocky painters that wanted to show off their mad skills by accidentally having painted a snotling instead of something impressive.) Doesn't "suitable for a specialised encyclopedia" mean anything? I thought that was one of the general includability-guidelines. Where do you draw this line? somewhere above snotlings, obviously, though I do not concur. Stijndon (talk) 19:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry as given that numerous editors and readers have been working on and reading this article since 2004 coupled with the many keep "votes" in this discussion, it is fairly clear that the actual community consensus is to keep as a handful of deletes in one five day discussion does not reflect the much longer community attitude toward this article. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You draw the line, obviously, at subjects which do not have significant coverage in independent third-party sources. Warhammer Fantasy Battle has oodles of these. Snotling does not. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had rather draw the line at something that cannot be verified anymore. It is obvious that snotlings "exist," and not only are they suitable material for specialised encyclopediae, they're even published in one. And yes, this was published by the copyrightholders of snotlings, but does that matter? I would gladly PROD anything that seems trivial and cannot be verified, like some obscure musical genre or some aspiring actress's vanity page. But snotlings can so be verified. What is the point in deleting them? Is there a point? At first I wanted to put the {user=deletionist} thing on my page, but this debate makes me refrain from that. Stijndon (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where individual editors would rather draw the line is beside the point, Le Grand Roi's arguments aside. Of course it matters that the only place a non-trivial account of the subject has been posted is in an "encyclopedia" commissioned by the copyright holders: they make money out of selling the miniatures, so it's in their business to cover them extensively. However, if no other source has done so then they evidently are not important to the world at large. The line is not "does it exist", the line is "has it been covered in a non-trivial way by a reasonable number of independent third-party sources". This hasn't. Arguments which fail to address this shortcoming are bogus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How are all the non-Games Workshop google images not independent sources? Oh wait, those were posted by painters looking to make a buck by showing off their painting skillz. And the encyclopedia only contained snotlings to further milk the cashcow that they obviously are. Those arguments are so poor! It looks like all sources are getting lumped in the "unimportant" "not notable" or "blatant advertisement" categories, and all keepers are "individual editors who've misdrawn their lines." Nice. Stijndon (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason all sources are being lumped into these categories is because they are. Think about it - Games Workshop sell millions of miniatures every year. If the simple ownership and display of these miniatures in sufficient numbers is an indicator of notability, that basically means any GW miniature is worthy of an article. This is definitely not the current consensus of the project. There is nothing to be said about the subject of the snotling which isn't game-guide or in-universe, which accounts for the complete lack of sourcing, and as such a real-world encyclopedia shouldn't have an article on it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that Wikipedia should only have non-specialised articles on general stuff. Stijndon (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It's the consensus of the project. The place to change that is not across random AfD decisions, even if it seems likely that the extended opening of this one is going to result in a no-consensus decision. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really the consensus of the project. If it was thousands of editors would not create, work on, come here to read, and/or argue to keep these articles. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary of a non-notable fictional creature. Craw-daddy's excellent analysis of the "sources" strongly indicates that this topic has not received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explaining my Keep Are people telling us that they exist as a conceept beyond Warhammer? That would increase the notability considerably. this will of course need references, but if the widespread use claimed is present, this should be possible/ The criterion is of course, sourceable, not already-sourced. Primary sources can be used for any purpose at all if they are reliable for showing what they are needed to show--in this case that the plot elements are the major part of a notable fictional universe,and therefore appropriate for an article. That notability is not popularity means that unpopular things too can be notable. If something is popular enough, its notable. DGG (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here we go again. The books, magazines and references on Warhammer subjects are almost exclusively produced under the direct control of the game manufacturer. Because they wield explicit and strong control over their intellectual property, an unlicensed fictional or out of universe account of this unit is highly unlikely. The significant coverage available on this subject comes from Games Workshop publications and publishing houses (White Dwarf, Fanatic magazine, the codexes and the works of fiction are all published and produced by games workshop). The sources listed above in the AfD (as no independent sources in the article are cited) provide a textbook definition of what is meant by a trivial mention. Each source either mentions the text string "snotling" in an entirely different context or only mentions it in passing on the way to discuss another subject. It is plainly not our business to populate this encyclopedia with items simply because some company has published material about them. This feeling is expressed in the guideline WP:N and in the overall outcome for the warhammer AfD's (overwhelmingly, the articles are deleted or redirected). We should respect that consensus and that guideline and delete this article as it fails the general notability guideline and meets no daughter guideline. Arguments to keep the article based on logs of edits, searches, or inherited notability don't cut the mustard. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Section break

Of course you know that zero independent sources does not always apply. Go read up on Taxation in the United States and its sources are all written by the IRS. Hardly independent. The argument about lack of independent sources has been rehashed a lot here, and some of us keep feeling that it doesn't apply. It's just some plot points is another argument we hear a lot. Now go read any article on any minor Harry Potter character and not only is it just a bunch of plot points, it's also purely sourced out of books from the same publisher. I think that snotlings are just getting a huge voting-trend against them that they do not deserve. It's a relatively well-written article, it's verifiable, and to some sub-population it is notable. And there are sources... Horribly pandering, flogging, blatantly advertising sources of people trying to either sell little snotling statues or show off their painting skills. For real? I would think those were acceptable here. Stijndon (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taxation in the United States has over twenty good references and most of them aren't, in fact, written by the IRS. House-elf isn't a particularly good example of a keepworthy article, but that's not a great argument. We do not have a different level of notability for fiction than we do for other content, no matter how much some editors believe we should, and we should use the policies that have consensus across the project. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No matter how much some editors don't want to work on certain articles or don't like them, isn't reason why those who do can't or shouldn't. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only "elsewhere" the race has appeared is in other Games Workshop properties. The word "snotling" is a trademark of Games Workshop. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even its use there is sufficient for keeping in some manner or other. I don't think we'd get much opposition for a compromise merge and redirect if it came down to it. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per LGRdC, DGG and Casliber. I don't expect articles to be rewritten and sources found in the space of AfD. Banjeboi 03:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In my opinion this term doesn't meet the GNG (at least as far as I can find). However, I do think this is an example of a place where the GNG is wrong. The non-independent sources allow for sourcing to meet WP:V, and in my search for this term I read through a lot of sources using the term. Most in the context of the game (mainly painting the minis) but some outside. Further, I found some pretty good reviews/overviews of Snotlings, but mainly in blog/forum type locations (self-published and thus not a RS.) The problem is that the term is clearly notable and worth having here. It is heavily used (25,000-75,000 ghits depending on how you do the search), shows up in RS reviews (as a passing reference) and simply belongs here. So an IAR !vote to keep. Hobit (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000)--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Founding

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of plot points from the various Warhammer 40,000 articles plot sections. It is therefore pure duplication and should be deleted Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:V. That policy states, in relevant part: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article is currently only sourced to two wikis, which are not reliable sources, and it does not appear to have had better sourcing at any time in the past. Furthermore, no specific sources have been provided here - links to mere lists of Google search results are inadequate. As a core policy, WP:V cannot be outweighed by consensus. I am therefore compelled to discount all "keep" opinions in the vein of "the sources are out there" and delete the article. It may be userfied on request, and may be recreated after it has been complemented with sources that satisfy the requirements of WP:V and WP:N.  Sandstein  07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic shower

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and as such is simply a repetition of plot information from other Star Trek articles plot sections. As such, it is duplicative plot summary, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a year ago, and no notability has been demonstrated, so what you must mean is Speedy delete. Also, the last decision was decided upon with zero proof of notability, so it should have been delete then too.

Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean speedy keep, because the existence in multiple sources demonstrates notability. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You must be confusing this with another article, as none have been demonstrated of any kind. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No the arguments made in the previous discussion and the results of the Google Book search are sufficient to convince me it is worthy of being covered in some manner. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to post something, make it have some baring on what we are discussing, which is notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
JS, please keep to the discussion of the article, and do not attack others for what they post. DGG (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Others have already asserted notability above. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People posting text that is basically nonsense to filibuster the AFD, create confusion, and distract from the nominating concerns is not an "attack", it is what is taking place here. No notability has been established of any kind, and it is obstructive and rude to make long posts that add nothing to this discussion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If notability was not established, multiple editors would not be arguing to keep across two AfDs. These editors are not lying per "assume good faith." --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There exists the possibility that they are wrong in good faith. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the case. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion carries only the weight of the arguments you make to support it. Empty assertions of notability and vague gestures to articles using the two words in proximity don't carry much weight, no matter how much good faith you have. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, I am not alone in my opinion and others are correctly convinced that the topic is sufficiently legitimate that there's no pressing need to redlink this search term. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:43, 12 August 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 Kevin (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randwick-Botany Greens

Randwick-Botany Greens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In the same way that Wikipedia draws the limit at councillors by only allowing federal and state MPs, I believe wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party (see this revision of the greens template) Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that the Greens party structure in NSW is such that party members are members of the local group and the state group is basically an alliance of these. That means that the local groups have far greater importance than in other parties and in fact form the constituent parts of the party rather than being merely branches. Local groups generally have their own constitutions and are self-determining in regards to policy. I believe this is also the case in Victoria. It may not be the case in other states and territories. I do agree however that the more recent edits to the page (not by me) lack appropriate encyclopaedic quality and require editing. Sambauers (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I agree that the template blows out when including these, and it need not include the local groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambauers (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite where a local (non-fed/state) group has achieved wikipedic noteability? Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Particular notability has not been established. Since there are over 50 such local groups in NSW this could be the start of an avalanche. WWGB (talk) 06:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an incomplete list of local political party precedents from the UK...

Local council level details in Greater London are maintained in detail. The fore-mentioned limits on political articles are being smashed in this case. Check the number of sub-categories and pages listed in this category for example.

Another example, councillors in New York City - Membership of the New York City Council

Many lists of mayors exist on Wikipedia, many of whom have pages, e.g. List of mayors of Phoenix, Arizona

Here's a random "sub-councillor" from Capetown, South Africa, Simon Grindrod. Found via this list of councillors - Members of the Cape Town City Council.

This is from a fairly brief search and is by no means comprehensive, I'm sure there are must be more examples of local politics articles. I appreciate that you don't wish to be inundated with articles for review, but there are clearly precedents for this level of detail on Wikipedia. And considering that up until this point this article is the first example of this sort of entry in Wikipedia for a local party in Australia I wouldn't think that you will find a major influx of new articles at this level. Sambauers (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't change my view, non-noteable. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While acknowledging the extensive research undertaken by Sambauers, none of the above examples relate directly to the situation of the article in question. Randwick-Botany Greens refers to a local (that is, sub-capital) branch of a state or national organisation. There is still no reason to report the workings of a grassroots, non-notable group. WWGB (talk) 06:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The above examples are not analogous and are in no way precedents. The three British examples listed are all political parties in their own right: IKHHC has an MP in Westminster. Randwick-Botany Greens is not a stand alone party, merely a party sub-branch. Bush shep (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Past precedents don't matter for this article anyway, as the author has failed to provide any reliable references that mention the "Randwick-Botany Greens" as a single entity. Reliable references must be provided first, before we can even consider step #2 about past precedents.-Lester 07:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As a non notable local branch unless evidence otherwise is provided. Nuttah (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The UK examples are acceptable analogies because the Randwick-Botany Greens (as is the case with many of the Greens NSW groups) is a political organisation in it's own right. If the NSW Greens was disolved tomorrow, many of it's affiliated groups (not "branches") would still exist as individual political parties, many with their own rules, bylaws and constitutions, like the Randwick-Botany Greens.
It appears that there is a fundamental misunderstanding prevalent in the comments here as to the organisational structure of the Greens in Australia. It is organised from the bottom-up, not the top-down. Any mention in the mainstream media of contests in the Federal seat of Kingsford-Smith or the state electorates of Coogee or Maroubra that mention the Greens is reporting on the direct activities of the Randwick-Botany Greens. They select their own candidates, they organise their own preferences, they co-ordinate their own campaigns. Federal Greens Senator Kerry Nettle was a member of the Randwick-Botany Greens when she was elected to the senate and of course by association she was a part of the NSW Greens and the Australian Greens. The group also succeeded in producing metropolitan Sydney's first Green Mayor. I feel these activities and links are notable enough. The reason you will not find the name "Randwick-Botany Greens" specifically used in sources is because it is consistently short-handed to "The Greens" in the major press.
One should acknowledge that the organisational structure of the Greens NSW is clearly laid out in the NSW Greens article here on Wikipedia and the publicly available NSW Greens constitution (See section 2.3 and 2.4 specifically), and to discredit a local group goes against these premises and the principles of the organisation you are attempting to describe here on Wikipedia. To discard the local groups as "branches" is counter to the origin and structure of the NSW Greens and creates a false and possibly even biased POV of the NSW Greens. Sambauers (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to add that the argument for deletion has been reduced to the notability guideline. Non-notability is not grounds for deletion per-se Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines, at worst the article needs to be marked with Template:Notability. Sources help create notability but this is an ambiguous situation. I am being asked to prove the existence of an organisation before I can apply precedents. This is nonsense. Detractors here have linked to pages listing the organisation as a member group of the Greens NSW in support of their arguments (calling it a "branch"), coupled with the statements in the NSW Greens constitution, that evidence supports the group's existence as an autonomous body. I am working on adding further notable evidence to the article keeping in mind the draft guidelines for political party notability (Wikipedia:Notability_(political_parties)) which seems less strict than the burden of evidence being applied in this discussion. Sambauers (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Sam but the consensus here is clearly for deletion. Local branches are deemed to be non-noteable, the page will soon be deleted. Timeshift (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is majority opinion but no consensus if I still don't agree. Yes, I am blocking consensus. This is supposed to be a debate, not a vote, and I am supposed to be offered the opportunity to improve the article to appease the objections stated here. The main objection appears to be that it is not notable, and lack of evidence of notability in itself is not grounds for deletion. As mentioned in the draft guidelines for notability of a political party, there are many more criteria by which a political organisation can be deemed notable than just press articles. Relative success in elections is one example and the article now covers that in summary (as a detailed overview would be excessive) and cites reference material. I am willing to take direction on how I can improve the article. I can easily add sources from at least one 3rd party media outlet, but I fear that they it won't be considered good enough (namely, Southern Courier - Established 1918, readership approx. 102,000). I feel I am acting in good faith, my last edit was aimed at removing non-neutral POV. From further reading of guidelinesI am attempting to remove self-published references. I am willing to work with anyone who is able to bring this article up to notability and NPOV standards, but I am not willing to accept that it is inherently not notable. Sambauers (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is to delete. One objection, especially from the article creator, does not change that. I await the textbook deletion of this inherantly non-noteable article. Timeshift (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No misunderstanding. The party organisation is no different to the Conservative Party (UK). The consensus is still that branches, local affiliates, or whatever you want to call them, tend not to be notable unless good evidence can be shown. Nuttah (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me while I complain... I'm sure you will delete this page, but you really need to review your collective process. It would help if you simply said that you were going to delete the page and there is nothing I can do about it rather than sending me on a wild goose chase for precedents, which were found, and pretending that the article would be kept if it was supported by certain types of sources. I have referred to Wikipedia documents regarding notability of political parties and presented evidence of the groups autonomy for naught. This article is verifiable, is not original research, does not violate copyright and has no POV. The deletion is based on a single editors belief that "wikipedia shouldn't go any further than a state level when it comes to the political party" and not any precedent or policy. Consensus has been determined by a head count rather than the strength of the arguments, this goes against Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus. Not once have I been offered assistance to bring the article up to an acceptable standard. I have good reason to refer this to deletion review, but I won't bother, clearly there is little opposition to limiting the scope of political articles in Australia. I will be a good Wikipedian and make sure that all trace of Randwick-Botany Greens and any other "non-notable" local content I can find in my local government area is removed or marked for deletion. Sambauers (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remove this redirect page, it should be Speedy Deleted [2] Sambauers (talk) 15:55, 11 August 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 withdraw. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-wireless

I-wireless (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The company does sell through Kroger - a major notability claim. However, there are several problems: only one secondary source is used, an overly promotional tone (some of which may be copyvio from an old version of the website), a logo used without any fair use declaration, and really bad layout requiring wikifying to even bring to par. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 04:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the G11 speedy based on the presence of a non-spam version in the history. And just as an aside on the logo, I'd actually argue that it's in the public domain per {{PD-textlogo}}. --jonny-mt 06:44, 7 August 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. Synergy 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holly_Beth_Vincent

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

This page is biographical, uncited, and unnecessary. This person is not a person of relevance. Ohgreedohyes (talk) 03:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Operator Please. lifebaka++ 13:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Gardiner

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

No longer notable person, keeps adding to her own article, constant vandalism. Drinkaboutit (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her page is constantly being vandalized and i believe this to be just another act by those childish people involved —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.209.2 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 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 all. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzfest 2-Song Promo

Ozzfest 2-Song Promo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Saron Gas 4 Track Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seether EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Five Songs (Seether EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Contested PROD. Promo EP with no sources nor assertion of notability. According to WP:MUSIC, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis mine) Stormie (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant advertising. -- Longhair\talk 23:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MD (company)

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

Article fails to demonstrate that the company meets the primary criterion for notability specified in WP:COMPANY. The article is aimed at commercial promotion of a business entity. The creator of the article, Bugsbunny1, has contributed only five edits, all related to this company. It appears to be a conflict of interest. Dolphin51 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Lovato (album)

Demi Lovato (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Usual crystal ball article. Sources provide essentially no information. Track list unsourced. No release date. No title. Kww (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep. Significant change in article since I proposed AFD: now has a title, and a release date on multiple CD seller websites (Best Buy and Amazon).
Kww (talk) 14:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: I left a note on the talk page of all editors that had expressed an opinion to make sure they were aware of the change. You can assume that any editor that argued for deletion and has not changed his statement still feels deletion is warranted.Kww (talk) 01:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The article fails to give reliable sources and verifiability about the track listing and the release date about the album which WP:Music#Albums wants. Reuters and billboard doesn't state the track list or the album release date but only states their will be an album, therefore it also fails WP:CBALL --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources [7], [8], [9] which should almost pass WP:Music#Albums. The track listing hasn't been confirmed, and per WP:MUSIC#Albums, "speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation"; but also "however, properly and reliably referenced information about the album's recording process, such as known guest musicians, may be sufficient to justify an independent article." I'm still going to give a keep. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:05, 12 August 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 as evidence shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Soysal

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:48, 7 August 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 evidence shows he meets WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fevzi Elmas

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

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition Hubschrauber729 (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. [WP:ATHLETE] mentions athletes "who have competed in a fully professional league." This football/soccer goalkeeper is playing with a team competing in a fully professional league. We don't care if he's been a substitute since he joined. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Uhm..... Competed means played, which there is no evidence of him playing a game. We do care if he is a sub or not. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played at least a couple of games for Galatasaray[10][11] in 2005 per Turkish Football Federation website. (Striking out my keep vote per Jogurney clarification that these are not Super Lig games. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

According to these match details, he appears to have plays the full 90 minutes in at least eight games for Galatasaray[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. There may be more, I stopped there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but those are neither Super Lig nor Turkish Cup matches, and as far as I can tell they are reserve or youth league matches (check this for the league and cup matches: [20]). I'm quite certain he has only played 1 Super Lig match (per TFF.org) and it was a meaningless 15 mins at the end of the last match of 2004-05 season. Jogurney (talk) 19:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I look more carefully, Elmas has played in 10 Turkish Cup matches. I have not looked to see if he was on a Super Lig club and whether the opponent was in the Super Lig, but if so that would help pass WP:ATHLETE on a more substantive note. I'm still at very weak keep on this article. Jogurney (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Ah, I see. I didn't realise that these were not Super Lig matches that I linked to (it is not clear). Is the Bank Asya 1. League fully professional? He seems to have made several appearances for Antalyaspor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note his short Süper Lig appears to be good enough anyways. He was the back-up keeper for many Süper Lig games - so only one short appearance isn't that surprising if the primary was healthy. Also note that his page references that there are pages for him on the Dutch, German, and Turkish Wikipedias. Nfitz (talk) 20:12, 7 August 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. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Dyer

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

the sportsman may be notable, but the people who work for him are not inherently so Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:40, 7 August 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 he passes WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Schmelzer

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 01:20, 7 August 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. I considered the arguments for merging the article, but if this article is expanded to include basic information on all parks in the system, keeping it standalone would be the best way to present this information. Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cobb County Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department

Cobb County Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself, any content could be merged into the Cobb County article. Wizardman 01:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect: We solved this shibboleth long ago: departments of counties fold into the counties' articles. Even if there is a major scandal with the department, the info stays with the parent county. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Contributors could extend the main article. --JJ.Mike (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This AfD is baseless. Yes, it's still a collection of stubs, but I'm working on it, and I invite others to also. It is intended to have the basic history of the department itself and each park or other unit, such as size, when and how it was founded, and what basic features it has (i.e. greenspace, stream, dog park, fields, civic center, etc.). This is far too much information to put into the article for a county or city.  –radiojon (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Radiojon, but consider moving to a "Parks in Cobb County" sort of article, I think this is more standard. --Rividian (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although this article is currently a stub and not well developed, the scope of the article seems to be significant enough to meet the notability guidelines for a wikipedia article. Therefore this article should have been tagged for expansion rather than nominated for an AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge and redirect to List of Twilight characters--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renesmee Cullen

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

Non-notable fictional character. Deprodded. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article- It is strong enough to survive on its own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.86.192 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! It's 100% valid. She's not JUST a minor character. Ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.208.119 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 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 Penance Stare... um... delete. Keep arguments did not give sources to verify information to my knowledge. Marvel reference necessary. lifebaka++ 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist)

Ghost Rider (motorcyclist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was prodded a long time ago, apparently (article dates to Nov. 2005), and while the prod was removed, notability of the subject is not established by reliable sources. Looking at the talk page, it's all "sourced" through Google video and blogs. The article itself uses nothing but the rider's own site as external links. All the material he has appeared in is self-released. GHits are this article as #1, followed by YouTube and blogs. MSJapan (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability is easy, verifiability obviously harder for someone so deliberately secretive. In the absence of any suggestion that Ghost Rider isn't genuine, I'd say we're adequately covered as it is. Obviously anything better would be welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete only ghits found were for the videos and random blogs, little actual discussion. Videos appear to viral on the internet (though I did find some on DVD) perhaps it could be merged into viral videos. SOL Basic 00:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Those sorts of riding feats are pretty incredible. Then again, they're illegal. Should we create a page for everyone who does increbible, but illegal, activities? Would an article about such create the illusion that Wikipedia at least tacitly condones such activities? If a TV station were to pick up this guys videos or make a real movie about them, then it'd be notable, but as cool as those videos are, they haven't even really spread virally to the various viral video sites on the web. Until it does, or some other notable company picks them up and promotes them, it just isn't notable enough (plus it's illegal). Banaticus (talk) 02:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. We should keep this article if and only if we can find reliable independent sources that discuss the subject. If such sources exist, hopefully we should be able to write a neutral article about him that doesn't make anyone think that opinions expressed about him by other people reflect the views of Wikipedia. I don't know whether we have such sources yet, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete although widespread as far as video content goes, without the verifiability aspect the article fails our policies and guidelines for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete via Jasynnash2, sounds like a ripoff off Knight Rider --Numyht (talk) 11:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A viral video/meme etc. that amounts to a popular but unstable subject for biography. I.e. you can't write a biography of a screen name, of a pseudonym, or a joke. You have to have some there, there. Without a studio or some other stable corporate essence standing behind this name, we don't have anything to describe. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"you can't write a biography of a pseudonym" Interesting point, but we seem to manage with The Stig. It's also likely that Ghost Rider is really one person and the Stigs are really multiple, suggesting that biostiggery would be the harder target. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While mentioned above, the Stig is a secret person, he is featured on a legal and sourcefull content. You can go to Top Gear and ask about him. Ghost Rider on the other hand, is an unofficial and illegal figure, and you don't have any legal and credible sources to cite. He is a myth, and the only real "credible" evidence he exists are 5 DVD's, distributed illegaly and under the table. Fukla (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sorry, I must have read you wrong because if the only "credible" evidence of existence (much less notability) is basically unobtainable that would imply to me that he fails our verifiability policies yet, you are using that rationale to argue for Keeping the article? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable. We also have Captain Swing. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I understand that ""unofficial and illegal" doesn't mean non-notable" the issue is also one of verifiability (which is the one I was trying to address for the new user). Captain Swing is simply other stuff and doesn't really have any bearing on this particular article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to "distributed illegaly and under the table", the dvds are sold in Australia legally. I have worked in a shop that sells the dvds without any sort of dodgy dealing. I'm not sure if he's notable however. 58.161.194.228 (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I remember Ghost Rider got atleast some [25] national media coverage when the first DVD was released. And the myth about him is quite widespread in Sweden. Cleanup is needed however. bbx (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_7&oldid=230343274"