Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 September 13
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ogdred (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 13 September 2006 (Delete afd3 starter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
- 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 Jersey Youth Reform Team. Petros471 20:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This biographical article appears to fail WP:BIO because while there is one newsworthy event to be covered, there is not a second. There are 84 unique search engine hits for the subject's name and "Jersey". In addition, this is a potential vanity article based on username of the creator and was deprodded without alteration. Erechtheus 00:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Gay rights in Britain. A notable event but a non-notable person. --Wafulz 00:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Jersey Youth Reform Team, the organization which he is executive director of.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would withdraw this nom subject to a merge and redirect, but I really can't at this point for two reasons: we need to determine where to redirect the title after merges and I wonder if there won't be even other places where information from this article should go. Erechtheus 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is unbearably vague about what this fellow actually did. The European Court agreed to hear his case (about what? the article says nothing) but the case was settled before the Court could hear it. Then we learn he continued to work for "reform" and "the rights of young people" (what does that even mean?) in his home area. What establishes notability from that sequence of facts? All unsourced. Allon Fambrizzi 05:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- Comment. The search engine results above will convince you that there is verifiable subject matter that is in need of documentation in at least the two articles mentioned above. I agree that this article is terribly written as is, though. This is where the old AfD dilemma comes in about whether this should be about what has been written in the article or what is readily available. I personally think neither of those options is always the right answer. In this case, I do think looking at what is available by Internet search makes sense. Erechtheus 06:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge since with 49 unique Googles I'd say that his independent notability is questionable at best. Guy 11:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and Keep: After looking at the article and the google hits the nominator provided I added some information, sources, ect. I'll see what else I can do when I get back this afternoon. This seems to be a notable person and event, there are verifiable sources, and while his main work so far seems to have to do with getting the law changed, he has founded an organization to promote youth rights and will probably eventually be mentioned for future works. I see no reason to delete. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 17:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, not notable enough on its own, but shouldn't be deleted.Ramsquire 19:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per the Pokémon Test. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 19:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, note that the Pokemon test is only an essay, and not a guideline or a policy.--TBCTaLk?!? 22:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Jersey. This young man did something most people wouldn't consider. The ages of consent were unequal - young people were too scared to voice the issue themselves, so he did.
He deserves this page as much as anyone else does. Luke, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.186.29 (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom. Markovich292 05:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Jersey Youth Reform Team and/or Gay rights in the United Kingdom; fails WP:BIO. TewfikTalk 18:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Jersey Youth Reform Team. Bridgeplayer 22:04, 18 September 2006 (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 move to H. L. Nage Gowda, nomination withdrawn. -- NORTH talk 08:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO Speedy Keep and move as said below. Tarret 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Aaron 00:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- Bakaman Bakatalk 00:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO; a non-published poet that hasn't been subject to any notable media sources and that hasn't won any major awards. Only 48 Google results [1]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, seems to have been a spelling mistake, as pointed out by Mereda and Arvind.--TBCTaLk?!? 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Major indian poets should atleast be awarded with a Jnanpith Award or a state award. Failing that, he must have a lot of published a lot of works. Since, he doesn't confirm with these 2 things, delete him. --Ageo020 02:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good one Antorjal. If he has won a state award, keep him. --Ageo020 18:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Jnanpith is awarded to one person every year. India has one billion plus people and 20+ recognized official languages. I think the Jnanpith criteria is as harsher than asking every British writer to win a Booker. The Sahitya Akademi award is a state-level award. I confess I know nothing about this author or the literature in the language he's written in, but I do know about this award and the recipients in the Indian languages I speak, who are well published and notable to millions. A problem with notability is that transliterations schemes don't always allow for the best hits and India has an abysmal record of getting stuff from local languages up on the net (hence the difficulty in searching on Google). I would like to request native speakers to establish notability (if it is notable) citing references. --Antorjal 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Victoriagirl 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep, expand and revise - per information provided by Mereda and Arvind (below). Victoriagirl 16:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.UberCryxic 03:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and sounds like a speech praising the person rather than an encyclopedic article. --physicq210 05:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep Showing evidence of improvement, but still on the brink. --physicq210 00:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --dtony 05:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 07:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:BIO. Thε Halo Θ 10:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even countering systemic bias can get this past WP:BIO, I'm afraid. Created by a family member, I'll go and leave them a note if nobody has yet done so.Guy 11:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep rewrite. A clear win for the deletion sorting system and the quality of the Indian content specialists. Guy 13:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
or move to Janapada LokaThe museum [2] founded by H. N. Nage Gowda is of encyclopedic quality. I don't know about his poetry but he's also listed as a poet under Vokkaliga, added in April by an anonymous editor. Mereda 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC) It looks like the subject is really H. L. Nage Gowra who's definitely notable [3], [4] (state award) and [5]. Mereda 13:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] - Very strong Keep, and move to H.L. Nage Gowda. The article name is an obvious typo - the person who started the museum is H.L. Nage Gowda, not H.N. Nage Gowda. H.L. Nage Gowda has won the Sahitya Akademi Award (see this obituary, which is a pretty prestigious literary award for writing in Indian languages. That clearly takes him past the threshhold established by WP:BIO. -- Arvind 14:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The total for H. L. Nagegowda and H. L. Nage Gowda comes to just under a couple of hundred hits on Google. The largest obit is by HI. SHI. RAMCHANDRE GOWDA - I am not familiar enough with Indian naming ocnventions to know if that would likely be a relative or an impartial biography. Any clues here? Is there an article on the native-language Wikipedia? Guy 15:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In Karnataka, "Gowda" is about as common as "Smith" in the UK, so I'd say the chance that he's a relative is pretty small. Incidentally, the newspaper in which that obituary was printed - The Hindu - has the same position in southern India that the New York Times does in the US, so an obit they print is unlikely to be mere hagiography. -- Arvind 16:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If anyone's still feeling doubtful about his notability, he earned the honour of a State funeral [6] Mereda 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten the article, which hopefully establishes notability. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to move it to the correct title until this discussion is done, so I've left it under "H.N. Nage Gowda". -- Arvind 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but change the N to an L -- though I understand there's a Hangul character component that can be equally validly transscribed as /n/ or /r/, so it may not be a typo (yes, I know Korean is an entirely separate language). In any case, if he's won an award that itself has an article, that's notable enough for me.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an award from an institution which has an article, which is not quite the same thing. Guy 16:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Sahitya Akademi Award has its own article too, though a pretty bad one. -- Arvind 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This would have been an open and shut case of delete for me because of the issues noted but the "Sahitya Akademi" which is India's rough equivalent of the Pulitzer sealed this one for me. However, I do stress that the burden of proof lies with the article creator/editors.--Antorjal 17:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus the fact that an author was nominated to hold office in a state legislature means he's respected in his own state and language. --Antorjal 17:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets encyclopedic criteria per Mereda and Arvind. Agent 86 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Merits inclusion, though should be rewritten and shortened in a more neutral tone. Trnj2000 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep certainly notable. Trnj2000 19:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the updated article. Arbusto 22:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - good article for rewriting and a notable person.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Arvind. --Ragib 02:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep thanks Arvind Mujinga 06:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Please note that Indian literature and Media have very poor web presence and just because you don't find something in Google, it does not mean that it is non-notable Doctor BrunoTalk 14:26, 14 September 2006 (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. Sango123 23:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable and unverifyable. Tarret 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Reads like spam. --Aaron 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if it's an accredited college then it's probably notable, but I can find no evidence of this place on Google, so delete per WP:Verifiability. -Elmer Clark 00:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Mad delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 02:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; fails WP:N and WP:V criterias--TBCTaLk?!? 04:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. Thε Halo Θ 10:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unverifiable spam. Guy 11:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Confirmed to be not accredited. This is the list of the only accredited colleges and universities in the Philippines [7]. zephyr2k 12:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Markovich292 05:58, 17 September 2006 (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. Sango123 23:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable software. Fails WP:SOFTWARE. Yes, two articles have been written on the subject but that work is not an independent source since SourceForge tells us that the two project admins for this software are neunm and schultem, most probably the authors of these articles. Google finds a lot of hits for webdip but in fact very few for "webdip + database" [8] or for "webdip + decision" [9]. No significant third party coverage. Pascal.Tesson 00:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:SOFTWARE criteria.--TBCTaLk?!? 01:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quatloo 04:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nomination is on the money. I note that User:Schultem also contributed to the article. Guy 11:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Storkk 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 19:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Guy. Michael Kinyon 13:28, 14 September 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mall, fails WP:CORP TJ Spyke 00:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete, subject to change if any user adds information that leads to the article passing WP:CORP. It was my hope to resolve that matter prior to an AfD, but the nominator chose to go ahead with this discussion, which is his right.Erechtheus 00:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the mall is notable, then the person who removed the prod should be able to find sources proving so within 5 days. TJ Spyke 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree. I have simply had enough AfDs go bad due to my own decisions to rush in for deletion that I'm taking a more cautious approach. You don't have to feel constrained by my choice. Erechtheus 01:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Explain how WP:CORP, the guidelines for including companies and brand names, applies to shopping malls? Malls should be considered under WP:LOCAL to begin with. --AlexWCovington (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If the mall is notable, then the person who removed the prod should be able to find sources proving so within 5 days. TJ Spyke 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - There are a slew of other articles about what I'm assuming many would consider to be non-notable malls. Why is this one so much less notable than so many others who are allowed to have their own articles? This mall is notable because it was one of the first enclosed malls in this part of the country.--MatthewUND(talk) 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's is a "part of the country?"–♥ «Charles A. L.» 16:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. don't delete things from AFD pages[reply]
- Keep - I feel that enclosed malls which are the first in their area are notable enough if only from a historic standpoint. Also agree with MatthewUND(talk) that there are other articles on malls, both enclosed and not, that haven't been targeted. (Not that I'm proposing we seek out mall articles for deletion.) MichaelCaricofe 03:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? Do we not have enough examples for WP:Pokémon test?–♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Truthfully, I'm afraid to argue this one too much (this is my first foray into the AfD arena). MichaelCaricofe 03:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per Erechtheus. Admittedly, this doesn't seem to be an ad, which is usually how I justify to myself saying "delete" on merely NN articles, but I want to be consistent. Process is important.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it can be a real shame when a decent article gets deleted all in the name of "process". --MatthewUND(talk) 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a fight between notability and Wikipedia is not paper. "This is a mall" (the article says more than that, but not much more) pushes me onto the NN side. The article might be editable to put me on the not-paper side, as Erechtheus said. As it is, however, it's primarily a directory. By "process is important" I meant only that there is a consensus (an evolving one, to be sure) on what is appropriate for Wikipedia, and I'm not going to buck it.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 13:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see anything notable here. Would anyone ever want to read this article? --Ogdred 03:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- People voting to keep are saying it's notable, do you have any sources to show that it's notable? TJ Spyke 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N; hasn't been mentioned in any major media sources; doesn't seem to have a notable historical background.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's rare that the local mall is notable. I'm sure we can all think of more encyclopedic subjects than whether or not there's a hardware store in a mall in Grand Forks. Opabinia regalis 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is too much like a directory listing. Is the next step to create pages for every local Wal-Mart?Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- Delete unless some references from reliable sources are provided. -- Mako 05:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep... aren't large enclosed malls inherently notable? — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 12:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have never seen a proposed notability guideline that makes such a case. What makes you think that? Erechtheus 16:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Give me a break. This is no different from any of hundreds of different mall articles already on WP. It certainly isn't any different from the other mall in Grand Forks. I must also strongly protest the fact that this was nominated without contacting anyone in WikiProject North Dakota. --AlexWCovington (talk) 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in that case perhaps Columbia Mall (Grand Forks) should be bundled into this AfD as well...--Isotope23 15:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in that case perhaps Category:Shopping malls should be bundled into this AfD as well...--AlexWCovington (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if someone wants to go through the bother of nominating the entries there, I'd not object.--Isotope23 20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unreferenced for starters, but even if referenced there is nothing to set this mall apart from the hundreds of other malls across America.--Isotope23 15:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at least as notable as hundreds of pokemons (which dont even exist in the real world!) Jcuk 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What a good point, Jcuk. Why is it just fine to have countless articles about ficticious cartoon characters, but it is so bad to have an article about a physical place with a real history and - at the very least - regional notability. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment actually I'd be more than happy to see all the pokecruft gone from Wikipedia, but realistically speaking, that will never happen. Still, just because Wikipedia has become a stomping ground for hundreds of articles about the minutiae of a childrens cartoon (curiously written by people who apparently are not in the target 10 year old market) doesn't justify adding any other sort of article. A better arguement for this existing in Wikipedia is to demonstrate the notability of this mall... as other are attempting to do.--Isotope23 03:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Moreschi 19:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP Sorry folks but the deletes have not done any leg work here, so shame on you, especially the Nom which I virtual shake a finger at for lack of their own research. The mall was built in 1964 and called 'South Forks Plaza'. It was Grand Forks', and North Dakota's first enclosed mall. How is that for notability? --Brian (How am I doing?) 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - according to WP:V the burden of evidence lies with the editors who have added (or wish to retain) unreferenced information, not those who wish the unreferenced information to be removed. Mako 23:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I was aware this was the first enclosed mall in North Dakota... and I'm still was not convinced of notability; any more than I'd find an article about the first Ikea to open in Michigan (which was a huge media event in the Detroit area) notable. As there is no accepted guideline for physical locations, all I can go on is personal judgement and to me "first enclosed mall in a state" doesn't cut it.--Isotope23 04:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP - This mall is as notable as any and Bschott above put it better than I can. Being the first mall in North Dakota certainly deserves recognition. Weatherman90 20:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And so far the keeps have not provided any SOURCES that show why it's notable. This mall is not notable just because you say it is. Also, you are free to nominate other similiar non-notable malls as well since I cannot know about every article on every mall here. TJ Spyke 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are pushing the issue for what ever reason you feel so strongly about it, I'll head to the library and find the books to reference. You may not know about ever article but you certainly have the ability to research before voting. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, other articles on malls have been deleted for being non-notable. I can't be expected to know about every article on a mall though. TJ Spyke 20:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are pushing the issue for what ever reason you feel so strongly about it, I'll head to the library and find the books to reference. You may not know about ever article but you certainly have the ability to research before voting. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And so far the keeps have not provided any SOURCES that show why it's notable. This mall is not notable just because you say it is. Also, you are free to nominate other similiar non-notable malls as well since I cannot know about every article on every mall here. TJ Spyke 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's just a mall in a smaller town, and it's a tourist attraction in North Dakota, esp. the eastern half of the state. Grand Cities Mall (formerly South Forks Plaza) was there more than 10 years before the more known Columbia Mall.--grejlen - talk 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It might be lesser known to some people who aren't from around here, but it's well known in North Dakota and western Minnesota.--grejlen - talk 21:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After more research at the library, I found technically the "Park Plaza Shopping Center" in Jamestown, opened a week before "South Forks Plaza" was the first enclosed mall in North Dakota, though the South Forks was finished first. (Courtesy of the "The Source: 2005 Edition", published by the Jamestown Sun) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschott (talk • contribs)
- Delete Malls are businesses, in the business of renting space to retail stores. That means WP:CORP is the applicable standard. The article, and this AFD to date, contains no evidence (and not even an assertion) that the mall meets the standards set by WP:CORP. And yes, I assume that there are swarms of other mall articles out there that deserve deletion. When/if I encounter one in my editing, I'll nominate it, but I don't go out of my way to look for articles to nominate. GRBerry 01:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No, that doesn't make WP:CORP apply, because the article is not about that business of renting out the space in the mall. Rather it is about the presence and impance on a community; it is more along the lines of the proposed Wikipedia:Places of local interest. Gene Nygaard 03:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- People who are voting keep, you need to provide a source that shows why this articles to be kept. No sources have been provided saying why this mall is notable at all. Also, Wikipedia:Places of local interest is only a proposed policy(meaning it isn't official policy yet). TJ Spyke 03:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You poisoned the well by bringing up WP:CORP. Museums and theaters and football stadiums are businesses too, but it isn't the business implications that are most important to the articles. Neither they nor malls should be considered on the basis of notabilities as businesses, per se. Gene Nygaard 16:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- TJ, I don't know how much clearer it could be. Head down to the local library, see if they will order "The Source: 2005 Edition" published by the Jamestown Sun. Books are allowed as sources per Wikipedia policy if I recall, unless that changed overnight and someone forgot to forward the memo to me. --Brian (How am I doing?) 04:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does being the second enclosed mall in South Dakota make it notable though? TJ Spyke 05:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I had no idea Grand Forks was in South Dakota. Only lived in North Dakota most of my life and thought GF was in North Dakota. Guess I learn something new each day from people who can't even take the time to get the facts straight. It was the first built/completed but second opened (by six days) in North Dakota. It also has been the longest open as "The Park" was closed for a few years then reopened back in the 1980's, and although it had damage because of The Flood of 1997 it was re-modeled and one of the very first businesses reopened after the flood. I'm quite sure a search of the local paper, the GFH would bring up these facts, though they don't have a searchable Archive online. Guess I'll head down to the local library and do a bit of research. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has references, fine, but malls are not inherently notable and the article makes no claim to notability. Doesn't pass the WP:CORP test. Fernando Rizo 18:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP This is an important historical building in Grand Forks, North Dakota! --RicKAbbo 20:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: "the first enclosed shopping mall built in North Dakota" seems notable enough to me, though perhaps it's marginal. Jonathunder 20:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Edgecution 20:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom is NOT a valid reason. This is not a vote, rather discussion based on research whether or not the article should stay. Delete per nom means nothing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? I agree with the reaon it's nominated. It's a non-notable mall(although very few malls are notable) and I haven't seen a valid reason for why the article should not be deleted. Edgecution 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom is NOT a valid reason. This is not a vote, rather discussion based on research whether or not the article should stay. Delete per nom means nothing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I think that many of the "delete" votes come from people who live in places where shopping malls grow like weeds, and thus cannot conceive of why any individual mall would ever be notable. I sympathize, but also recognize that the notability of something depends not just on what it is, but also on where it is. In the case of North Dakota, a large enclosed mall is undoubtably notable, even if it wouldn't be in, say, Phoenix or Los Angeles. Skybum 00:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't have said it better myself. --MatthewUND(talk) 06:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not ready to change my vote yet (and I think this will be no consensus anyway) but this is finally the first really interesting reason to keep and I'd like to see it expanded upon. Are malls really so rare in the State of North Dakota that the first mall is notable? I have to admit, where I live, in 1 hour's time I could get to 10-12 malls easily. A mall simply is no big deal.--Isotope23 12:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not voting either way on this (I usually vote to keep malls, but I'm wishy-washy as to this one), but I think this AFD proves we need to have a discussion on shopping mall notability in general. There have been a lot of mall AFDs lately, many of which have been kept either on their own accord or by lack of consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carlingwood_Mall, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mall of Louisiana or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oakland_Mall). It is my opinion that WP:LOCAL applies more than WP:CORP here, as most articles don't necessarily pertain as to malls as a business, but rather their status within a community as a landmark, economic power, etc. This places them within the same realm as parks or schools. Kirjtc2 13:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Isotope, I guess I should explain. Enclosed malls are not abundent up in North Dakota cities as a whole. Fargo, the biggest city in North Dakota has one...West Acers. Grand Forks, has two (columbia and grand cities), Jamestown has one, and there is one in Bismark, the state capital. Something else to point out is that theses cities are hours apart, making enclosed shopping malls nearly a novelty. Grand Forks and Fargo are 45-50 minutes apart via the interstate highway 29 (which is 75MPH and little traffic). Jamestown - Fargo is +2 Hours and Bismark-Fargo is 4-5 Hours, hence the reason the editors from North Dakota are so against this delete. It's the longest running enclosed mall in a state with so few of them around. I can understand if LA, NYC, Miami, DFW, or KC has 10-40 (or more) enclosed malls within the city (or suburbs) making someone from that area believe enclosed malls are not notable, but from an area where the next closest enclosed mall is a +2 hour drive...the mall would be notable. This mall is notable for the community because it is a 'big deal' for the city. It was the Focal point of the city's shopping economy for decades, and still has drawing power. In a state with a total population of 642,200 people I hope you can see the context, when a city such as LA has a total population of 4,097,340! , --Brian (How am I doing?) 15:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think I can approve of where this sort of reasoning takes us. I have family members who live in rural West Virginia. Up until they got a Wal-Mart last year, they had no shopping of that nature within around an hour of where they lived. Does that mean that the Welch Wal-Mart should have an article because it's a "big deal" to the few people who live in the northern part of McDowell and the southern part of Wyoming counties? I don't think so. Erechtheus 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think you can compare a Wal-Mart store to an entire mall. A Wal-Mart, no matter what kind of an impact it has on a local community, is just one store. On the other hand, a mall is more than just a store. In ways, it is almost like an entire neighborhood. The Grand Cities Mall had a major impact on the city of Grand Forks. When it opened, it started the decline of once-bustling downtown Grand Forks. In ways, the mall was a "new downtown". People had never seen anything like it. It seemed huge back then and its opening forever changed the business climate and the landscape of the community. In North Dakota, the opening of a mall is not a regular news item. The opening of this mall was especially noteworthy since it was basically the first mall that anyone had ever seen in this area. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think I can approve of where this sort of reasoning takes us. I have family members who live in rural West Virginia. Up until they got a Wal-Mart last year, they had no shopping of that nature within around an hour of where they lived. Does that mean that the Welch Wal-Mart should have an article because it's a "big deal" to the few people who live in the northern part of McDowell and the southern part of Wyoming counties? I don't think so. Erechtheus 19:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ogdred. Markovich292 06:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, verifiability over notability. --Myles Long 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MatthewUND. Strip malls would generally not be notable, but major shopping malls should be; perhaps we need better CORP guidelines or a seperate WP:MALL guideline to handle this. Yamaguchi先生 23:28, 18 September 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Every song on album by Keane. Listcruft." Ogdred 00:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The information belongs in articles on the singles/albums themselves, not altogether here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Unusually for me, I think this article appears justified as a sensible way to organize the information. My Alt Account 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a valuable source for information related to Keane's songs. Also, we currently already have a lot of song lists [10].--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete adequately covered by other articles. Artw 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what's the copyright status of those midi samples? Guy 11:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this should be covered in articles on the releases these songs appeared on (and indeed I'd argue that should be the case with all the articles it the list TBC referenced...) This is just another way to slice and dice data that already appears (or should appear) elsewhere.--Isotope23 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge with Keane. --Alex (talk here) 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm not sure I like the format in which the information is presented but I don't think it's an invalid article as such. Perhaps the information on the "rare" material could be added here to give the article greater value and dispose of an unneccesary additonal article? Ac@osr 16:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all above Jcuk 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fancruft. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. --Dhartung | Talk 18:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - should be in articles on band and albums, not one of its own Ergative rlt 21:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the Keane page. --Ineffable3000 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fancruft and unnecessary duplication of information found (or should be found) in other articles. -- NORTH talk 08:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per what everyone else already said. - 85.210.146.49 22:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ac@osr... but those midi samples are very unlikely to be fair use and should be removed ASAP. The JPStalk to me 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Keane. This will be of interest to fans, and has some encyclopaedic value, but doesn't merit its own article. Bridgeplayer 22:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This is not covered by other articles, we do have a lot of this lists and I did create those MIDI samples. Therefore, I'm uploading a better version of Snowed Under right now. I added the information of the "rare material"--Fluence 23:18, 18 September 2006 (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. Sango123 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another list of songs by Keane. Ogdred 00:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's no workable definition of "rare", it seems to me. Even if there is, this is listcruft. BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pure listcruft, can't see a need for this to have its own article. My Alt Account 00:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BigHaz. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above; listcruft--TBCTaLk?!? 01:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fancruft. Artw 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ridiculous fancruft.UberCryxic 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fancruft. Not even sure what a "rare" song is. eaolson 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. No need to list his every "accomplishment." --physicq210 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Keanecruft. Thε Halo Θ 10:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- POV seleciotn criteria, arbitrary. There is no encyclopaedic topic of "rare songs by Keane". Guy 11:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV selection criteria, arbitrary list (there is no encyclopaedic topic of "rare songs by Keane"). Guy 11:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV and arbitrary criteria list.--Isotope23 15:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what's with all the Keane pages? Rare could mean anything, as someone pointed out --Alex (talk here) 16:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - but information on verifiable (ie dates of performance or quotations from the band - some of the songs have this I note) unreleased material can be encyclopedic. This article isn't the right way to deal with it however. Ac@osr 16:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fancruft. Ergative rlt 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fan/listcruft. -- NORTH talk 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it just seems like a list for the sake of having a list. Richyard 17:12, 15 September 2006 (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. Sango123 23:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Random facts about Keane. Listcruft, and a possible copyvio -- the infor is taken from an FAQ site, according to the article. Ogdred 00:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fancruft trivia article. My Alt Account 00:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 01:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Controversies and criticism section of the Keane article. I checked the FAQ site, and there isn't a copyvio, though the article does seem to be based on it. --TBCTaLk?!? 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per TBC into controversies ot trivia. --Ageo020 02:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ogred and 'My Alt Account' Artw 02:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and don't merge into the keane article. Richyard 07:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete mostly unverifiable trivia and original research (using the term research rather loosely). Guy 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge into Keane. --Alex (talk here) 16:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even Eric West's Wiki fanclub would get away with such blatant cruft. Ac@osr 16:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable trivia Trnj2000 17:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above.UberCryxic 19:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fancruft.--Húsönd 21:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fancruft. Ergative rlt 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for TBC. I personally asked for permission to Chris Flynn for using the information from his website. He did want credits for. And a copyright tag is located at the bottom of the article.--Fluence 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you find the way to merge it into Keane and it's not deleted, I won't fight keeping this article. And believe me. I cannot lose--Fluence 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for TBC. I personally asked for permission to Chris Flynn for using the information from his website. He did want credits for. And a copyright tag is located at the bottom of the article.--Fluence 23:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into main article. --physicq210 06:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but judiciously. Someone should vet this stuff for encyclopedic value. Fernando Rizo 18:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the ONLY thing that is relevant is the info about Chaplin's drink/drug problems, and that can be merged into the main article. The rest is irrelevant claptrap nonsense, and Fluence, we've already had this debate several times over at the main article. Also believe it's eligible for content forking. 'Fancruft'... I LOVE that term. :-D Flyingnelly 11:08, 15 September 2006 (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. Sango123 23:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable network. I was at first fooled by Google's 44 000 hits but on closer inspection it's 49 unique non-wikipedia hits! [11] No sign of third party coverage. Unquestionnably fails WP:WEB. Pascal.Tesson 00:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to state that that "49 unique non-wikipedia hits" is incorrect. You are grossly misreading Google results. Do a search for the word cat. By your logic there are fewer than 900 "unique hits" for that word. Common sense tells you that is nonsense. Quatloo 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When the number is this small it is less likely to be misleading in that way. My benchmark is that if you get more than about 200 unique, and thousands total, the unique count is probably worthless. I could, of course, be way off there. Guy 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been frequent reports in the past that the unique hits are only filtered from the first 1,000, so when the total's much higher, they're not valid. They may be of value to provide a ratio, as in this case, 95% of hits are dups of the first 5%. (Per below, by refining the search, the relevant total came much lower. It appeared from experimenting that 7,000+ were foreign uses of zesix as a word, and 36,000+ were from their own domains, leaving not much.) Fan-1967 19:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Erechtheus 00:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per very well explained nom. My Alt Account 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB and WP:CORP.--TBCTaLk?!? 00:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's a problem with the search above, because google only filters unique hits from the first 1,000, so when the total's above that, the unique hits are questionable. However, when running the seach again, filtering for only English results (seems it's a foreign word), and excluding results from their own site, clantemplates.com, the result is 604 total, 48 unique. That fails WP:WEB. -- Fan-1967 01:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ogdred 03:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanispamcruftisement written by the company's director of operations, Z6 Nakor (talk · contribs), who has no other contributions to the project. Guy 12:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment nice job of picking that up. You'd think that maybe people would use a slightly more subtle user name when spamming. Pascal.Tesson 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Hellwing 23:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above reasons.UberCryxic 04:25, 14 September 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unaccredited, unnotable "institute" started in 2003[12] Article asserts no notablity. A search of "Carroll Theological Institute" at yahoo brings 337 yahoo hits with 2 wikipedia articles in the first ten hits. Fails WP:CORP. Arbusto 01:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Over 1100 google hits excluding wikipedia/mirrors. Ironically, the article you link to provides strong support for claims of notability, as it places the founding of the school within the historical context of struggles within the Baptist leadership of Texas. The information that the school is not accredited would be extremely useful to people considering enrolling. Allon FambrizziAllon Fambrizzi
- I get 1,020 for "Carroll Theological Institute" at google including the wiki article and mirrors as the second thur fifth hits. How is it notable? Because the "Associated Baptist Press" (not to be confused with Associated Press) wrote an article? What's the ABP circulation? Arbusto 04:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I get 1,260 general hits with the WP mirrors, and those boil down to only 216 distinct Ghits. The article makes no attempt to show notability, and without sources appears to be original research. The article makes no statements about any struggles for Baptist leadership, nor historical context. I do note the "Associated Baptist Press" claims in their ad rates they have 80,000 paid subscribers with an estimated readership of 200,000. Fine, but WP:CORP (the closest guidelines I can find) requires multiple non-trivial third-party articles to establish notability, and I'm only finding church newsletters and blogs for the rest of it. In any case, per the ad sheet the ABP is a church organ (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) and not a third-party. Tychocat 11:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand this article into something useful and correct. As it stands, it stinks and it's a link farm for degree mill links. - JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Delay (talk • contribs)
- Comment: New user/possible role account for an unaccredited religious "school". Arbusto 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. But Arbusto, what does that comment mean??? Ogdred 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The institute is not yet notable enough to have its own article. A news article by a major news organization might have been convincing enough to give this article a chance, but the not-so-well-known Biblical Recorder doesn't do it for me. -- tariqabjotu 01:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, not interesting. Half the article is an ad and the other half is about its lack of accreditation. I swear I've seen this on AfD before (or has there been a rash of unaccredited theology schools up lately?) Opabinia regalis 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes! You saw it in yesterday's AfD. I think rbusto really wants rid of it... --Ogdred 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've listed a few unaccredited institutions in the last few days. Including the current two at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Clements University. Arbusto 05:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of neutral independent sources. There are notable unaccredited schools, this does not appear to beone of them. Guy 12:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand The article appeared to be fine until, if you'll note the history, a few ofthe voting editors here came in and deleted most of it. Shazbot85Talk 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As Dlohcierekim alluded to, how does this meet notablity standards at WP:CORP? Arbusto 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Only 216 unique Google hits. Nothing at Google News. The question here is not the quality or quantity of the article but the notability of the subject. :) Dlohcierekim 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete More like an unaccredited religious academy operating out of a suite. Firstly, website lacks a .edu, signaling a non-government authorized educational entity. Secondly, I question this Theological Institute's .org status.Hellwing 23:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete little outside information indicates verifiability issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete promo of nonaccredited institute, i.e., "institute". Mukadderat 23:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if we can spare 3KB for every pokemon card known to mankind... we can spare 2KB for a real verifiable place. ALKIVAR™ 00:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But the issues is WP:V, and WP:CORP notability. Without WP:V to verifiy what it is the article will be bastion of POV, and what it isn't (accredited). If this institute becomes notable and has valuable sources then the article should be recreated, but until then the article lacks WP:V which does no favors to the instiute. Arbusto 20:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't have a problem with us documenting known diploma mills so long as we specify that these institutions are not accredited. Silensor 00:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:CORP (if any more detailed evidence of the institute being important in the intra-Baptist struggles that made it into non-Baptist press then I may consider changing my attitude). JoshuaZ 01:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a Jew, I cannot possibly understand all the nuances that went into creating this school. But a thorough read through the articles regarding the school shows that it is quite genuine and was created to meet a perceived need for a new type of school. That a new school is not accredited by a well-known accrediting agency does not make it a diploma mill. Nor do I find it at all unusual that the mainstream press hasn't latched on to this school as a subject for articles that would confer the notability so many feel it would be given. Despite the lack of traditional news coverage, the articles provided and available online provide clear satisfaction of WP:V . I find the use of "scare quotes" and other derogatory suppositions regarding its nonaccreditation making it a suspected diploma mill to be a staggering violation of WP:AGF. I have few doubts regarding the notability of this institution, but many regarding those who are so quick to delete it based on entirely unsupported suppositions and original research. Alansohn 03:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A new kind of school? Unaccredited bible colleges offering worthless degrees are a dime a dozen. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply to prove my point about good faith violations. These folks seem to have a genuine interest in teaching folks their version of Baptist theology as they understand it. I've seen ads for diploma mills, all of which read "send in a check we'll send you a sheepskin." If you take a look at the school's admission requirements, they're doing a very poor job of attracting only those who just want a phony credential. I see no evidence (nor has anyone offered any) implying that they're pushing paper, and not their brand of gospel. I find the school notable and verifiable, and I can at least respect challenges to the issue, even if I disagree. But, other than that, all I see are rampant violations of WP:AGF. Alansohn 03:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AGF applies to users and their actions. AGF has absolutely nothing to do with assuming the school is acting in good faith. JoshuaZ 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree 100%. I see people deciding to delete this article because they have presumed that the article was created to push a diploma mill. The bad faith demonstrated regarding the institution itself is just gravy (bordering on bigotry). Alansohn 03:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AGF applies to users and their actions. AGF has absolutely nothing to do with assuming the school is acting in good faith. JoshuaZ 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply to prove my point about good faith violations. These folks seem to have a genuine interest in teaching folks their version of Baptist theology as they understand it. I've seen ads for diploma mills, all of which read "send in a check we'll send you a sheepskin." If you take a look at the school's admission requirements, they're doing a very poor job of attracting only those who just want a phony credential. I see no evidence (nor has anyone offered any) implying that they're pushing paper, and not their brand of gospel. I find the school notable and verifiable, and I can at least respect challenges to the issue, even if I disagree. But, other than that, all I see are rampant violations of WP:AGF. Alansohn 03:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please per alahnsohn notability is not doubted here by me either Yuckfoo 05:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If notability isn't doubted by you then explain how it passes WP:CORP? Around 200 google hits and article asserts nothing.Arbusto 07:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuckfoo is an inclusionist. I think this is being Gastroturfed. Guy 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and this several in the last few weeks to get attacked. I am compiling evidence to end this though. Arbusto 00:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Alansohn; the article is informative, neutrally presented, and verifiable as it stands. Yamaguchi先生 22:35, 18 September 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article was deleted after the first AfD, mostly over advertising/POV concerns. User:VegaDark requested to recreate a non-POV version of the article. So the questions for this round are: 1. Does the article adhere to WP:NPOV, and 2. Does the article successfully establish notability? ~ trialsanderrors 01:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since the first AfD I've made major improvements to the article to make it much more NPOV and encyclopedic Diff, which were the main reasons for it's original deletion. This company is to be considered notable based on the criteria at WP:CORP, please see my comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 12 on that. The article still needs cleanup so feel free to make any edits you feel appropriate, I erred on the side of keeping info when I did my rewrite so there is probably still some info the article could do without. VegaDark 01:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per VegaDark. A clear, NPOV article that establishes notability. Since there is no one really voting delete, I feel a speedy keep is in order. --Daniel Olsen 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't tell if you're serious. But if you are, I'd suggest that 13 minutes from AfD listing to deciding that no one is really voting delete is a bit hasty given that five days is typical. William Pietri 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Three editors in the first AfD claimed non-notability. Since that's an open concern I doubt speedy applies here. ~ trialsanderrors 01:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I voted Weak Keep last time; User:VegaDark has definitely improved the quality of the article greatly, mostly by making the article shorter. Nicely done VegaDark. My Alt Account 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — much better than the draft :) -- lucasbfr talk 01:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, with regret. VegaDark has done great work, but I still don't see enough reliable sources that push the company over the line in WP:CORP. Specifically, of the references, the first two sources are interviews, which are not fact-checked. The third is an article written by one of the company founders. The fourth is commercial self-promotion. Five, seven, and ten are about The Meatrix, which we have covered. Eight is a press release with a single paragraph about one of their films. And eleven is their own site. That leaves only one reference, number six, a short article from the Epoch Times. With only one article that's actually about the company and from what I'd call a reliable source, to me this doesn't pass WP:CORP. It pains me to advocate deletion of such a nice-looking article, but unless more evidence of notability turns up, I don't see an alternative. Sorry, William Pietri 01:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree some of the sources are suspect, the first two I would consider meeting the requirements of WP:CORP (first isn't working right now though). I asked on the talk page if interviews meet the requirement or not and the answer was essentially "it depends, use good judgement". I think they look independent enough to be reliable. The fifth source is not only about the movie, part of the article about the company that made it. VegaDark 01:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. I left out reference 9, which is a link to an unsigned blog-ish post on a web portal. Sorry for the unintentional ommission. William Pietri 04:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with William Pietri here, looking at the Newsbank coverage I get less than ten mentions total, about half in passing, and none that are actually about the company. Four or five are about Store Wars, so that might be worth an article, but I'm unwilling to buy arguments that two sources are enough to fulfill WP:CORP when the WP article is longer than the full text length of the sources. We're here to summarize the existing sources, not to extend them. ~ trialsanderrors 02:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged it as needing more relaible sources. I believe that is a better option than deleting the article outright when we do in fact have some reliable sources. VegaDark 02:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think for the most part it needs to be cut down to size. I have no idea what the lengthy "Issues addressed" bullet point list is supposed to convey. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I was 50/50 on deleting that entire section. Now that you mention it, consider it gone. VegaDark 03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think for the most part it needs to be cut down to size. I have no idea what the lengthy "Issues addressed" bullet point list is supposed to convey. ~ trialsanderrors 03:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged it as needing more relaible sources. I believe that is a better option than deleting the article outright when we do in fact have some reliable sources. VegaDark 02:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I looked through the refs, and though some of the links don't work (after only 11 days), there are enough that do that, to me, provide independent verifiability. That, plus the filmography shows plenty of notability in my book. I didn't see it before the page was redone, but it looks like it should be kept at this point. Akradecki 02:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per William Petri. Though the article looks nice, if it isn't just promotion, why are there so many images in the page? It does feel like free advertising to me... --Ogdred 03:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per William's reasoning above. I share his disappointment - even I have heard of this and I am the last person to hear about web fads and the like, but the independent reliable sources simply do not seem to be there, and without them we can't have an article, because we can't verify the neutrality of the article. Guy 12:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite William's reasoning, a quick web search shows me that there's a lot more out there that can be used. WP:V should not be a major obstacle here. Okay, WP:CORP may be, but it seems like this is the kind of company that may fit in the fringes of that guideline... and I would really hesitate to classify this under "indiscriminate collection of information," and WP is not paper after all. As WP:NPOV is no longer an issue here, I think we can keep Vega's hard work. Mangojuicetalk 12:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I find that these two sentences:
1. ...and the novelty of it got the attention of both the general public and the social activism community
2. ...Free Range delivered its first Flash animation piece that would have worldwide impact.
and the overall tone of the article is trying to be, at times, too corporate-bound, as someone from the company, Free Range Studios, or someone from an advertising firm hired for Free Range was to write to pronounce and glorify efforts, that I think, is from just another rank and file graphics firm. I understand that this studio has been instrumental in eliminating the civil war in Sierra Leone, but what percentage of contributions they gave to ending the bloodshed is questionable; (is there an article stating the direct cause Free Range Studio's movie had on both sides of the war? Would internet access and electricity be readily available for the warring sides? I simply cannot imagine whether the bloodshed in Sierra Leone, would have, even momentarily, ceased to watch and think about this Flash animation). Finally, The sources lack the tangible authority that Wikipedia is generally known for when its users produce knowledgeable, useful, and globally relative. The sources, or the lack thereof, appeal to people who have strong interest in graphic arts and is severely limited to that clique. An internet user would gather more information simply googling for Free Range Studios, and visiting the company's official website.Hellwing 00:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User's 8th edit. VegaDark 02:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Account's 8th edit, seems more like it. ~ trialsanderrors 09:17, 14 September 2006 (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, A7 (no assertion of notability). Guy 12:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot verify this information and the article is unsourced. Deville (Talk) 01:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - NN governmentofficialcruft. WP:NOT directory of civil servants, until they do something notable. My Alt Account 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn govt appointee (yeah, like Charlotte really needs homeland security?) Akradecki 02:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Very, very weak keep and expand. There was a big to-do, at least here in New York, when it was noted that Charlotte got quite a bit more money per capita (at least) for homeland security than New York, where as we were so recently reminded there's been an attack already. Parkins is at least tangentially involved just ex officio.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 03:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Else every municipal director of homeland security is going to want their own page.... --Ogdred 03:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not every government worker in every municipality needs a bio page. eaolson 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO as non notable. Thε Halo Θ 10:53, 13 September 2006 (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. Sango123 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable residential college at the University of Miami. Google hits are mostly from the University of Miami website. Babomb 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to University of Miami--TBCTaLk?!? 01:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per TBC Casper2k3 04:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect seems reasonable. Guy 12:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Crunch 23:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to U of M. ALKIVAR™ 00:56, 16 September 2006 (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. Sango123 23:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a major aviation incident. No one died, the cause of the crash is not peculiar; its just a plane that crashed. It has no encyclopedic value. – Zntrip 01:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; non-notable flight that experienced a minor emergency. Only four relevant Google results [13]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per google search. --Daniel Olsen 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete aviation-incident cruft. Not every single filed incident is notable, and this one sure as hell isn't. There's a very good reason why it didn't get any news coverage. My Alt Account 01:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — pfff... no one died, not interesting ;) (per nom) -- lucasbfr talk 01:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cynicism aside, non-notable.UberCryxic 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Ogdred 03:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per palpable lack of external interest. There never will be any real sources on this apparently unimportant and not particularly unusual incident. Guy 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, appears to be not as notable as other articles in Category:In-flight airliner fires. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 16:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom, though it's reasonably well written Computerjoe's talk 18:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although it is obvious how this discussion is going, I like the idea of this article. It is an article about the successful control of an emergency situation. It is from emergencies like this one that our technical society learns to improve. Because of this incident, emergency handling procedures and emergency equipment can be improved. If the incident had been a disaster, and then, I suppose, notable, with all the Souls on Board (S.O.B.'s) dead, then there would be fewer learnings. But most likely, for this article to be notable the authors would need to make more clear the notable learnings from this incident. I think there was a hint of those learnings in the criticism of the air traffic response to their emergency. As an aside, it is most likely very notable to the family and friends of the crew that they did not become an encyclopedic event. WVhybrid 23:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a database of incidents. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FedEx Flight 597. Emergencies should be described on a page where people will look for them. Pavel Vozenilek 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. per nom. —dima/s-ko/ 03:05, 16 September 2006 (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, discounting SPAs, newbies. Alkivar's keep would be more compelling if it weren't in Pirate-Day Pirate-Speak. :) Xoloz 16:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
non-notable, fails verifiablity, fails WP:LIVING —Hanuman Das 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my nom. The reference links don't work, and an affidavit is not a reliable source. —Hanuman Das 01:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Many of the details would be verifiable (there was a civil suit). The first link does work, pointing to a news article, and there is back-up on the Ross page, stating that this did bankrupt the CAN. There is clearly an honest attempt at sourcing the aticle here. Is this deletion request in good faith? --Ogdred 01:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and being the case that caused the Cult Awareness Network to go bankrupt and end up in the hands of the Scientologists (assuming that is indeed true) is certainly notable in my book. --Ogdred 01:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the nom is in good faith. Neither of the links was working when I nommed it. I agree that the case itself is notable, but is the person? —Hanuman Das 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per above. Shortfuse 02:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Uhh...so is he really notable because litigation involving him caused the CAN to go bankrupt? And in that case why isn't it enough that the CAN article covers this? This fellow is a private citizen who does not seem to have done anything besides file a lawsuit against the CAN. Litigants in lawsuits, even if the lawsuits generate famous issues or produce famous results, are not usually notable. We should respect this guy's privacy. Allon Fambrizzi 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- Yeah, what he said. —Hanuman Das 05:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As I see it, the article passes WP:V, WP:LIVING and the links work, so most of the reasons for deletion given here are not valid. The article presents reasonable detail about his notability, including not just the suit itself, but the circumstances around the later settlement, and attempts by his former lawyer to nullify it, so Scott is not just a plaintiff here. On top of that, it is a fairly well written and sourced page, in contrast to most of what is being discussed here. --Ogdred 06:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ultimately this is not about Jason Scott the man, it's about the Jason Scott deprogramming incident and subsequent repercussions. The subject appears to have little or no coverage outside of that restricted locus. Thus, covering it in the articles on CAN and Ross is both logical and prudent per WP:LIVING . I am not sure the subjecty would consider this incident to be the sum totalof his life's worth, and as the article says his current activities are unknown (for good reason: he is not actually independently notable). Nor is this article entirely about Jason Scott, a fair bit of it is about his mother as well. Overall, I'd say delete this history and redirect the few inbound links to CAN. Guy 12:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Merge with/redirect to CAN article. --Roninbk 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This man had a huge effect on the deprogrammer industry. Seano1 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Rename The arguments for renaming the page to something like "The Rick Ross -- Jason Scott Case" make sense, but the information is too important to the history of cults to delete. Thank you. User:AOrange 17:08 13 September 2006 (PDT) — Possible single purpose account: AOrange (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic..
- Keep. I agree with AOrange that it might be renamed after the Case, though, as it's not really about Jason Scott's life, just his famous case. --Eileen R 02:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not a biography, but an article about a court case, a case which is only important in the context of CAN. Any info not in the CAN article should be merged into it. -999 (Talk) 14:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Arrrrrr this be a Keep says I tis a famous incident... methinks this belongs as a keep! ALKIVAR™ 13:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete merge any relevant details into the CAN article. TewfikTalk 18:49, 19 September 2006 (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. Sango123 00:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notability/importance in question. Text itself indicates ...NebraskaFish's is known to few outside the state of Nebraska... — NMChico24 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a google search brings up 28 unique hits: nothing but official webpages, stumbleupon links, and ebay hits from the user doing business under the name Nebraskafish. --Daniel Olsen 02:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above until this actually gets substantial media coverage. Irongargoyle 02:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete nnbio. Danny Lilithborne 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the article isn't a biography.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable sticker art.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete who needs to know about non-famous stickers depicting cartoon fish? --physicq210 05:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced and unprovable assertions plus a guy with an inkjet printer. Hard to call it anything but spam, really. Guy 12:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Guy. Thε Halo Θ 14:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Computerjoe's talk 18:37, 13 September 2006 (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. Not only was it never going to pass muster, it was created by the developer and was inconsistent about whether it actually exists or not. So while it might not strictly qualify for speedy (although actually it did lack sufficient context to establish why anyone would want it), it does qualify for early closure before the AfD becomes an attack on the creator. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Guy 12:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:SOFTWARE as a minor utility and was created by the developer. Crystallina 01:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable software; no relevant Google results [14]--TBCTaLk?!? 02:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Doesn't this qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD A1? --Ogdred 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. This at least tries to provide context. Crystallina 03:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that count as context? No explanation of what it is or what it does, just how big it is? Just curious... --Ogdred 03:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. This at least tries to provide context. Crystallina 03:25, 13 September 2006 (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.
Blanked, per request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. Sango123 00:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- del 100% original research trying to prove that horse ripping is not cattle mutilation. `'mikka (t) 02:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research and unverified.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Allon Fambrizzi 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- Delete As fascinating as unverified speculation on the relative rates of anus removal in livestock can be.... Opabinia regalis 04:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or split into their relevant sections. Preferably delete. --physicq210 05:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Created as a POV fork by the author when challenged about the relevence of this material on Cattle mutilation Jefffire 06:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Yikes. Onebravemonkey 09:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as unverifiable, and original research. Thε Halo Θ 10:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV fork with no realistic hope of ever being anything else. Guy 12:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per above. --Storkk 13:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Horse ripping. It's sourced, and a (much shorter) paragraph or two about the distinctions between horse ripping and cattle mutilation would be encyclopedic, IMHO. TheronJ 13:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge sourced claims only into horse ripping. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research. Ergative rlt 21:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Arbusto 22:28, 13 September 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable church. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Ogdred 02:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Calera, Alabama - plenty of room there for a little article like this, has some nice historical data, and one of the five unique non-Wikipedia googles is the local historical archive, which suggests some merit to it. Guy 12:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Húsönd 21:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. Arbusto 22:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge to Calera, Alabama. Most local churches (temples, mosques, etc...) don't merit that much, but this one is at least on a historic register. [15]. GRBerry 01:12, 14 September 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An unencyclopedic article on a nn Canadian author and poet whose children's book, All Aboard The School Bus, co-written with four other writers, is not recognized by Amazon.ca and Chapters.Indigo.ca (the country's two largest booksellers), and receives a total of three unique ghits - all sourced through Wikipedia. The anthologies in which Czartkowski has appeared are also not recognized. Possibly a vanity article - the original editor has contributed exclusively to this article, Robert L.J. Zenik (Czwartkowski's husband), and lists, such as List of Canadian poets, to which the user has added Zenik and Czwartkowski. Victoriagirl 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not her too? Delete per nom --Ogdred 02:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails WP:BIO and WP:VAIN criterias.--TBCTaLk?!? 02:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO. Thε Halo Θ 14:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. Arbusto 22:28, 13 September 2006 (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 bone-shattering roundhouse delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Possibly a hoax? Definitely unsourced and I can't find any verification for this even existing. A martial arts form founded in New Zealand sounds a little fishy, no? If someone can prove me wrong, I'll gladly end this early. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Not entirely sure about this -- it doesn't exactly look like a hoax to me, just poorly written and unsourced. (Oh, and the characters and caps in the title would have to go.) I cwould deleat on WP:V, as I can't find any relevant Google hits. --Ogdred 02:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Zazaban 04:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain why?--TBCTaLk?!? 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete . A martial art with moves like "KI PUSH BLAST KICK" and "KI ROUNDHOUSE BLAST KICK"? With hardly any relevant Google hits? Sounds like a hoax to me...--TBCTaLk?!? 04:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without going into whether this particular article is a hoax or not, I want to point out a big pitfall of counting ghits for a term in Chinese, namely that transcriptions and transliterations can vary -- I can think of at least three transliteration systems just for Mandarin, not to mention whatever one-off ways people come up with of contextlessly writing down one Chinese word in Roman letters.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, note that the characters in the title are half Chinese and half Korean ("기" is a Korean character), which may be further proof that the article is a hoax.--TBCTaLk?!? 17:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Without going into whether this particular article is a hoax or not, I want to point out a big pitfall of counting ghits for a term in Chinese, namely that transcriptions and transliterations can vary -- I can think of at least three transliteration systems just for Mandarin, not to mention whatever one-off ways people come up with of contextlessly writing down one Chinese word in Roman letters.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now - I am going to go to NZ to track these guys down. Then, I'm going to kick all their asses. I will be able to fully document the martial art once I'm done doing this. Until then, no evidence that it even exists. My Alt Account 04:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that original research? 8-)–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the ass-kicking will get very substantial independent coverage. My Alt Account 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't that original research? 8-)–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After some further reading, it seems that the article is defiantly a hoax. Qi (or Ki as the Japanese call it) can't be used to actually alter the forces of nature, thus a "Ki push blast kick" or "Ki roundhouse blast kick" would be impossible. Using Ki in such a way only exists in martial arts movies, but not in real life. --TBCTaLk?!? 04:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like the author was playing too much Mortal Kombat or something. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This sounds totally silly, there is no way it can be a real martial art. Cheifsguy 04:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete A hoax. Allon Fambrizzi 04:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- Comment Hoaxes are not criterias for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD for more info.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unless verified. Looks like hoax to me.-- thunderboltz(Deepu) 07:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. Thε Halo Θ 10:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete although chi-gi appears to be a valid term for a kind of strike in martial arts, that's not what this purports to be about, and the title includes nonstandard capitalisation and non-Western characters, making it a case of the wrong content at the wrong title - hoax or not, it has to go. Guy 12:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Though it's true that chi is used in martial arts, note that "pushing" things with chi is entirely fictional. As I've said above, using chi like that only exists in martial arts movies, fighting video games, and the Star War films (where it's known as The Force).--TBCTaLk?!? 14:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax or severely non-notable. --Storkk 13:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be a (poorly written) fictional martial art system, apparently inspired by fighting games and bad anime. --Roninbk 13:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not really equipped to evaluate this, but if it is kept, it not only needs cleanup, but some attention to compliance with Naming conventions–♥ «Charles A. L.» 15:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Recent research indicates that CHI-GI . . . developed from a need to defend themselves form an attacker, and that it was also used as a way to have fun in the small towns, as in sports events. Were this "recent research" available, it might make a case. But how much "research" does it take to confirm that this one claims to do what all other martial arts do? If kept, remove Sinograms from the title. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think it might take more research than you would think, just to hurdle WP:NOR --Roninbk 19:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless nom. is proved wrong. Arbusto 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The section on elbow techniques is a direction rip from the wikipedia's muay thai article, it has its own section called elbow techniques and it is word for word. This would devalue the CHI-GI article's value, meaning it should be deleted.Tiatzu 2:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Reading further, the entire thing was ripped off to varying degrees from Muay Thai My God, plagiarism within Wikipedia? Where does it stop? This user is using humor to illustrate a point, but is serious about the Delete --Roninbk 13:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Tiatzu and Roninbk. Also, no reference has ever been made to this "chi gi" on usenet.[16] Shawnc 15:04, 16 September 2006 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable synagogue. Most synagogues, churches, etc are not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 02:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- B'nai Avraham Synagogue
- Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue
- Bnei Yisrael (Karaite synagogue)
- Chizuk Amuno Congregation
- Congregation Beth Elohim
- Congregation Emanu-El (San Francisco)
- Congregation Ohabai Shalome (San Francisco)
- Congregation Sherith Israel (San Francisco)
- Harford Jewish Center
- Mount Zion (Synagogue)
- Temple Tifereth-Israel
- Yavneh Minyan
- Delete all except B'nai Yosef Synagogue, on which I am undecided. Is the mural painter significant as an artist? —Ogdred 03:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep B'nai Yosef Synagogue and Beth Sholom Synagogue,
delete the rest.The mural painter seems to be notable, and Beth Sholom was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright.The rest don't appear notable.BryanG(talk) 04:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Per various below, procedural keep all and renominate individually. I'm not particularly convinced of the notability of the rest of these articles, but a mass AfD is clearly a bad idea. BryanG(talk) 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Bryan G.'s move to Keep B'nai Yosef and Beth Sholom and Delete the rest. Perhaps it would be best to withdraw those two, which are notable on architectual grounds? Allon Fambrizzi 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- Keep all of these for now. Please renominate a few separately, but only after considering other and better options. This is not a good group-nomination. There are a few possibly "deletes" here, another few which I'd like to see kept, and a few which could possibly be merged. A few appear recent and architecturally undistinguished (B'nai Avraham Synagogue, building purchased 1995) or focus on seemingly non-notable minor congregations (Yavneh Minyan, Harford Jewish Center), and these should be nominated separately. Several of the others appear to be about synagogues or congregations from the mid-19th century and the oldest or one of the oldest in various American cities, such as Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue (Brooklyn, congregation from 1856, synagogue from 1855 but originally a church and acquired in 1905; family synagogue of Aaron Copland). At the very least, the better-written of these articles should be merged into articles on more general topics such as the History of the Jews in San Francisco. I am sure such articles could be written. Bnei Yisrael (Karaite synagogue) is a rather pointless stub but claims that it is "the only Karaite synagogue in the United States" - that suggests just redirecting to the general article on Karaite Judaism, where this synagogue is mentioned, would be the best option. Then we have the one designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and the one completely covered with murals by Archie Rand — obvious keeps. up+l+and 08:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have withdrawn my nominations for Beth Sholom Synagogue and B'nai Yosef Synagogue per above suggestions. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, per Uppland. With all due respect to the nominator it looks as if this might need more eyes. How about an RfC or a Wikiproject discussion for a group view on which should be nominated, which merged to their local community and which kept? I'm not confortable with the fact that some self-evident keeps have come out in the wash here. Guy 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy's suggestion is excellent! This entire effort should be discussed at length at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism, with many well-informed editors, where it will receive the hearing it deserves. The world-at-large cannot take upon itself to act as a "tribunal" for which synagogues are or are not notable to Jewish people in the communities they live in. IZAK 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete all, now that the Beth Sholom and B'nai Yosef have been removed. Weak, because Guy's suggestion makes some sense.Storkk 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all except B'nai Avraham Synagogue and Yavneh Minyan. Bnei Yisrael (Karaite synagogue) is significant as "the only Karaite synagogue in the United States" The rest have over 50 years of history (most significantly more) so it is very likely that there are verfiable sources related to them that are hard to find (there is a simmlar logic at a proposed policy at Wikipedia:Schools). Jon513 16:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sure there are verifiable sources related to them, but they simply are not notable. Tons of articles on topics and places with over 50 years of history have been deleted from Wikipedia because they weren't notable. This holds true for these synagogues. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that they are as notable as a small village. Jon513 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What User:Danielrocks123 is overlooking is that most modern Jewish communities stem from waves of immigration that arrived about 100 years ago, so that 50 years is a significant time-frame. He also overlooks that each subject has to be understood in its own context, and that Notability is relative and a subject must be understood in its own context first. Not all subjects are the same or equal. IZAK 09:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that they are as notable as a small village. Jon513 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sure there are verifiable sources related to them, but they simply are not notable. Tons of articles on topics and places with over 50 years of history have been deleted from Wikipedia because they weren't notable. This holds true for these synagogues. --דניאל ~ Danielrocks123 talk contribs Count 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep most per Uppland Hello32020 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all I detest group Afds and think they are usually poor, impatient, and lazy generalized cleanup efforts. Some of these need cleanup or more meat and effort, or maybe even deleting. Who's expected to comment on each one and make it a coherent discussion? --Shuki 22:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Non-notable synagogues per nom. changes.Keep all, these should be listed individually as some are obviously notable. Arbusto 22:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Keep all The ones I looked at are notable. --YUL89YYZ 22:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural non-precedential keep all. The mass AfD is unjustified. It's quite possible all should be deleted, but we need to do it individually. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. - CrazyRussian talk/email 23:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All Most of these articles are clearly notable, and most of those make explicit claims of notability. Given the weight of worthwhile articles here, I say keep all of them. Alansohn 10:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think these should be brought individually, but keep all in the meantime. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. I may be a tad biased here, since I wrote both the Baith Israel-Anshei Emeth Synagogue and B'nai Yosef Synagogue articles, synagogues I am rather fond of, and which were both nominated for deletion. But honestly, look at those articles - the oldest continuously operated synagogue in Brooklyn (over 150 years) is not notable? A world famous Sephardi synagogue uniquely and completely covered in murals is not notable? Even one I didn't write, the Beth Sholom Synagogue, which has has been listed by the American Institute of Architects as one of the 17 American buildings which are to be preserved as an example of Frank Lloyd Wright's contribution to American architecture, is not notable? Admittedly the last two have been removed from nomination, but still, this mass deletion request was not well considered. Jayjg (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, and reconsider the deletions used as a basis for this mass deletion effort, as so few bothered to vote that it probably the decision was not based on a consensus. Most churches, synagogues, etc., are in fact notable - WP is not paper.--Leifern 18:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep all renominate each individually. Jay et al.make excellent points in that there may be some worthy of deletion, but many not, and lumping them all together only serves to obfuscate matters. Avi 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all First of all I am really aversed to mass-nominations, if you are not sure of the notability of a topic you go by a case by case basis, you don't nominate every single article in the subject for deletion. Second of all, I really do not understand the nominator's reasoning, most of these synagogues seem notable enough for a wikipedia article. This entire episode really reminds me of the hundred or so nominations by User:PZFUN.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now on procedural grounds, per Uppland, Shuki, CrazyRussian and others. Just as a side note, if someone is around Brooklyn a photo or two of the murals in B'nai Yosef would be a great addition to the article, if that can be arranged. 6SJ7 19:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per Jayjg. Reconsider on individual basis. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per Jayj Shuki, CrazyRussian. Some of these certainly should be deleted and some of these certainly should be kept. This is not an effective method of doing this. JoshuaZ 20:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Jayg, Shuki, Crzrussian. --Daniel575 | (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jayjg and others. I want to add that these synagogues are not just *well, for almost all( notable in and of themselves / these pages cumulatively document a historical geography of the Jewish people. My suggestion is instead of deleting these articles - or even articles on Churches or lighthouses - we rethink them. I used to be opposed to all "lists" because I thought what is the point of just a list? But now I realize, as Wikipedia has grown and as our coverage has grown both in scale and complexity, that series of articles like these can fulfil a very valuable function. A list of lighthouses, for example, is not just a series of articles on tourist sites or points of possible architectural interest. They can provide a historical geography of maritime history, illustrating how the organization of regional and global shipping has changed over the years with new technologies, new forms of consumer demand, etc. Similarly, I do not think a series of articles on "churches" should just be about buildings - these buildings illustrate important moments in the history of a geographically dispersed phenomena, it is a whole other way of writing about religion. Now, there happens to be a fair amount of research in historical geography so I am not making this up, and I bet there are very good secondary sources one could draw on in using those articles to map out the historical geography of different religious movements. I see this request for deletion as an opportunity to take stock of just what Wikipedia can do. I urge not only that these articles be kept but that editors working on them coordinate their efforts to ensure that the articles (synagogues) on this list not only talk about buildings, but use these buildings to talk about where and when Jewish communities have waxed and waned. The result of this kind of work on these articles (and similar series) can really push wikipedia further as a scholarly resource. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All Keep separate articles for those that are notable buildings, or notable as per Slrubenstein above, and the others can be aggregated in one article such as Synagogues in San Francisco or the like. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All per Uppland. Tomertalk 03:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To refine my perspective...I went with "keep all" in agreement with Uppland's recommendation, but I think Jossi actually offers a better proposal... While those synagogue articles that deal with congregations that aren't particularly noteworthy on their own, from an encyclopedic standpoint, specifically, they are noteworthy from the perspective of the history of Judaism in the US [or whereëver else, for that matter]... If a synagogue isn't noteworthy on its own, specifically sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own article, it is, more likely than not, sufficiently noteworthy to warrant mention and some coverage in a more wide-ranging article such as Synagogues in San Francisco, or...and here's what's swaying my perspective, Synagogues in Wisconsin... Three defunct synagogues, and that's only the ones that come immediately to mind, in Wisconsin (in Madison, Stevens Point and Appleton are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, yet none of them, in my view, are sufficiently noteworthy to warrant independent articles. I know there are 3 defunct synagogues in Superior, 2 in Sheboygan, and one in Ashland, as well... All of which probably wouldn't warrant mention in Encyclopedia Brittanica, but Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. I think a failure to understand that concept is probably what prompted this nomination, especially where that concept butts heads with WP:N. And so, I'm going to refine my opinion to keep all, merging into appropriately-named articles where warranted. To clarify, I'm strongly opposed to this group nomination, but I think it has been a beneficial exercise nonetheless. If my view holds sway, the aftermath would probably be most productively pursued at WikiProject Judaism... Tomertalk 07:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all those that do not assert notability beyond "it has a rabbi and some communal activities, and one or two famous members". Inclusion criteria should be significant notability/notoriety. I agree with Daniel that synagogues sec are not notable, and agree with Jay that some may be notable (e.g. architecture, antiquity) - those should be kept. JFW | T@lk 06:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, because Jews amount to only about 13 million people in the world and their houses of worship have always been integral to their Jewish identity, especially outside of Israel. Does User:Danielrocks123 also intend to nominate the thousands of articles about churches in Category:Churches and mosques in Category:Mosques for deletion? So why then is he picking on these articles from Category:Synagogues? His nominations here are fatally flawed. IZAK 09:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination is based on a mass deletion of churches. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lighthouse United Pentecostal Church Omaha, Nebraska. Jon513 10:09, 17 September 2006 (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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a notable congregation. Another user endorsed this proposed deletion. Peter O. (Talk) 03:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ogdred 03:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Casper2k3 04:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete mostly generic. Nothing here to establish local or historical significance. Guy 13:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deltree (bringing back the DOS days of delete). Two or three HELC's in Fargo, ND...why is this one notable? Also very very Adverty! Not encyclopedic at all --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. Arbusto 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the user that put prod2 on the article. (Yes, this is a contested prod.) No evidence, or even assertion, of notability or importance in the article. No independent reliable sources used. GRBerry 01:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Markovich292 06:09, 17 September 2006 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page of non-notable corporation. No hits on google. No alexa traffic ranking. No evidence of satisfying WP:CORP. Valrith 03:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP and WP:ADS criterias.--TBCTaLk?!? 04:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Ogdred 04:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, This site RE-launched itself this month. There are hits from google, yahoo, altavista, msn search, etc.... This corporation is well known in new york. This site should stay up because of its' deep historical impact it had in the streets of new york. More input will be placed within the article as time goes on. kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.141.22 (talk • contribs)
- Comment, if really had a "deep historical impact it had in the streets of new york", then why are there no Google results (excluding those from Wikipedia)? [17]--TBCTaLk?!? 05:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [after edit conflict] You appear to be mistaken about the search engine hits ([18]). Delete as non-notable. -Elmer Clark 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, actually, I used the full name of the company in my Google search, Aquanodd Labs, whereas you used only the word "aquanodd", so technically neither of us are mistaken.--TBCTaLk?!? 06:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. MER-C 08:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:CORP. Thε Halo Θ 10:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, WP:CORP. PJM 13:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails to establish importance from reliable secondary sources. Reads as an advert, and it's not obvious what we'd use to fix that, or why we should care enough to do so. Guy 13:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero Google hits using Aquanodd labs -Myspace -Wikipedia [19] --Brian (How am I doing?) 22:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per google's lack of knowledge. Arbusto 22:33, 13 September 2006 (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. - Mailer Diablo 15:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
International Assault article has been deleted, therefore this article serves no purpose Normy132 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment why does it follow that the article "serves no purpose"? Not a great article perhaps, but why is WSW to be deleted because one promotion was deleted? --Ogdred 03:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is all WSW ever did. If the promotion only promoted one show and that show has been deemed worthy of being non-notable, why should the promotion be any more notbale thatn the show it promoted? Normy132 04:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. RobJ1981 06:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given that its notability rests solely on something whose notability was insufficient for inclusion. Looks like wrestlecruft to me. Guy 13:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm detecting a bit of sour grapes here. A quick trip through the (hist) shows that the nominator was the primary editor for this page. It sounds to me that Normy was on the losing end of a AfD debate for the International Assault page, and has decided that it logically follows that WSW is non notable too. I don't agree. Might I suggest that you could combine the old information from the International Assault article into this one, and create one good article from two incomplete ones? --Roninbk 14:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Robinbk. The nom has given no reason to delete here, except the precedent set on a now-deleted article. Ogdred 22:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Holy typo, Batman..." --Roninbk 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No time for apologies, old chum. We must thwart some criminals. --Ogdred 02:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Holy typo, Batman..." --Roninbk 08:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Daniel Olsen 06:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing my AfD. Roninbk raises a good point. Normy132 02:52, 24 September 2006 (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It really does read too much like an advertisement. And no citations. Bordello 03:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Vanispamcruftisement. --Daniel Olsen 03:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- His web site says that Upside Down Art is hanging at the Louvre -- that sounds pretty important to me! Delete. --Ogdred 04:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Does not seem like any issues exist to justify further discussion. Allon Fambrizzi 04:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
- Comment. How does it fall under WP:CSD? Not having any "issues existing" is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Also, the nomination has been recently created, so there's always a chance for someone further on to bring up new evidence showing that the article may be notable.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Casper2k3 05:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --physicq210 05:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this vanispamcruftisement created by the artist's promoter. Guy 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Thε Halo Θ 14:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google returns no independent info about this guy. It seems like an hoax or con. Seano1 20:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN. Arbusto 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you delete me then would you delete my Uncle, Ernest Emerson of Emerson Knives, known all over the word and who's knives are used by US/British special forces? "My art "introduced to Lourve" L R.E. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.17.90 (talk • contribs) 14 September 2006.
- Maybe, maybe not. The AfD debates are not linked in any way, they only create a "precedent" if the cases are extremely similar, and even in that case they're always independently considered. (If anything, delete debates can provide guidance to forging the notability criteria.) In this case this article's debate wouldn't have any bearings whatsoever on deletion debate of Ernest Emerson, in my opinion. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WIKIPEDIA -DOES NOT GET MY POINT -You suggest Google was a source for verification! Ha, I am the source for verification! My uncle-Ernest Emerson, I am also the 13th Great Nephew of Hannah Emerson -DUSTIN, who's reatated to Ralph Waldo Emerson, thus I am also part of the Ralph Waldo Emerson Family Tree, and so is my Uncle, Ernest Emerson. Emersons have been in the US since the 1640's. Don't delete any one of us until you know your facts. Goolge should never be your only source. My accomplishments are well documented in many ways and I do not share all of my work with the web or with it's users. This year alone I am giving away $1,000,000 in art. Is this also nothing to Wikipedia??? Delete me I don't care, delete all of the Emerson's. - signed L. R. Emerson II —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.21.197 (talk • contribs) .
- First, Google test is only something that gives people a gut feeling on how widespread or popular something is - it's not a substitute for notability criteria, but it's an indicator among many. But in this case, it's pretty problematic: the article has no references. If we can't google this, how on Earth anyone is supposed to fill the references and clean up the ad tone? One would guess there were a lot of web references famous people of this caliber, no? Yet none are referenced in the article, not even the printed material, none of the press material. Second, "this person has famous relatives/ancestors" is not a positive notability criterion. We've already deleted a lot of articles on the grounds that they're just some celebrity's children with absolutely no accomplishments of their own. Third, please don't take AfDs personally. We're not debating about your worthiness, we're debating whether or not the article fits our inclusion criteria in this state. And forthly, please sign your comments by using the signature button on the toolbar, or using four tildes in row (~~~~) after your comment. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear vanity, especially given the comments above by the article's subject. You are not a reliable source. -- NORTH talk 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Celebrity - Ha!! I am not desiring nor needing celebrity. As far as references within the article Emerson Knives and Ernest Emerson's work as well as Hannah Emerson Dustin and Ralph Waldo Emerson's work are easily researchable on the web. Only since last year have I allowed work about myself to be posted on the web by my representative e4 FINE ART, e4fineart.com., >To talk</, you mention google was only "one" way of many way to get a gut reaction to an article, despite that on goolge searching "l. R. Emerson II" produces 3 pages of results. Are you saying I do not exist at all. Even just in May, 2006 my work was exhibited at Virginia's elite and nationally respected, Contemporary Arts Center and two television programs have recently been in contact with me. My work was being published as early as 1985 in both trade magazines and Newspapers. Work has also been on th cover of Entertainment Sections of Daily newspapers and other newspapers. During the past 20 years more than 100 awards, including ceremonies in my honor have be bestowed upon me - not that I care or I would have introduced my "upside-down art" 20 years ago. Instead I professionally perused art starting in 1985 and built a tremendously successful business, as awards came in and in 2005 hired assigned a major portion of my work over to e4 FINE ART to represent and promote. I am not really sure why this is any of your "talk pages" business to know.
Is every article on wikipedia written with every single detail of a person's ( they are the subject) life or life's work. Seems to me the majority of the qualitative comments on this discussion about deleting the article have been that There were no references or that the style of the writing sounded like an ad. There are some published biographical articles in the possession of e4 FINE ART, which do not sound like an ad. Is Wikipedia saying these should be incorporated into the article, "Emerson, L. R.' ?
Sounds to me Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia edited by users but rather an encyclopedia wishing it was Britannica. It is not critical for me to see that all evidence of my success be posted to the web. So to use google as a "primary" source, albeit ‘gut feeling’ or whatever is bogus. My accomplishments speak for themselves and there is so much more to be told and to come. If other tests exist to define the merit of an article what are they??? L. R. E. 4.88.19.176 11:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)/* Emerson II, L. R. */[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia edited by users. It's also an encyclopaedia that is edited by users. This may sound surprising. "Editing" doesn't just mean "add random information that someone finds interesting", yes, we value that too. But editing also means "summarise, compare, add sources, add pointers to further information". That's what "real" encyclopaedias do, too. As said above, don't require web sources, just sources that are reliable and sufficiently public. You say you have newspaper sources - that's fine, by all means, do add them to the article. Please be specific - it's not enough to say "has appeared on cover of magazines", but it would be prudent to give examples of such. As for published bios, we can't use them, due to copyright reasons, unless they're licenced under GFDL - but they can be used as starting points and sources. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:57, 16 September 2006 (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.