The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete someone had deleted the content and replaced it with a request to delete because she died in childhood and was inimportant in the Habsburg line. The article is unreferenced, but probably could be. Question: is an archduchess who dies at 4 years of age notable per se, presumably a 4 year old didn't do much of note other than what notability she inherits from her parents. If kept, we'll no doubt finally see separate articles for all of Queen Anne's (UK) unfortunate children who died as toddlers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Often the best solution in cases like this is Merge info into the article(s) on the parents, and redirect this to the same article (if there are two articles, take your pick as to where to redirect it :) Grutness...wha?02:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a repetition of the plot section of the Destroy all Humans articles in an in-universe way. As such, it is trivia and duplication, so it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main series page, per Fabrictramp. Character shows little notable outside of the series (the series itself not a significant video game series) Quick google check shows no significant sources about the character specifically. --MASEM01:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are already 2 relevant very short paragraphs in the main article. The question is whether there is sufficient relevant information for one on the main characters who define the story, and I think there is. DGG (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...can be easily found (Chriss Morell, "Destroy All Humans! Path of the Furon: Crypto is back and armed with enough alien firepower to eradicate mankind as we know it," GamePro 235 (April 2008): 32-33. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!01:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above. You can claim it's notable all you want, but notability needs to be demonstrated through reliable third party sources. Right now, that is not the case. -LtNOWIS (talk) 09:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: when you get down to a concise overview of the character, this will fit nicely into the DAH article. Not notable enough to stand up by itself. Randomran (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is a compilation of trivial appearances of a fictional soda brand in JJ Abrams film. It deserves a one to two sentence reference in his article, not a whole article detailing trivia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Only include in Abrams article (or others) if real world impact can be shown using reliable 3rd party sources. Otherwise it is just non-notable trivia. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There a couple of RS websites that mention Slusho as part of the Cloverfield marketing campaign: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (blog, but BusinessWeek blog), to list a few. There are no sources that I can find entirely devoted to Slusho, and the article is at the moment mostly in-universe. Given that the sources refer to Slusho in the context of viral marketing, perhaps this article could be merged into an as-yet-uncreated article, Cloverfield marketing campaign (or something similarly named), which given these sources and the sources at Cloverfield#Marketing, could be seen as having notability and real world importance. So redirect+merge if this is deemed possible, otherwise delete. GracenotesT§13:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Flash-in-the-pan/famous for fifteen minutes. Not sufficiently notable person for an article, despite the brief flurry of news per shock value. (I have seen articles on murder victims with more news coverage deleted for non-notability. What did this guy do, other than creep people out on a few slow news nights?--nothing noteworthy.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Massively violates WP:BLP, almost certainly GSD 10 as well, particularly given that the only formal legal action that appears to have been taken against this guy is a restraining order. Debate (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I concur that notability is sorely lacking, but CSD G10 does not apply because the article - while almost entirely negative - is not entirely unsourced as the speedy deletion criteria requires. Some of the sources are dubious at best, but it's at least a good faith effort, which trumps CSD. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is there about numerous reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage, such as the Associated Press, The Oregonian, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and CBS News, that does not satisfy WP:BIO and WP:N? Several months of time span in the news coverage is not "fifteen minutes." Arguments of "IDONTLIKEIT" or "HECREEPSMEOUT" do not trump Wikipedia notability policy. Edison (talk) 05:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I say weak because I don't see an assertion of notability persay but, have recently missed assertions in other articles and the article is sourced to some very reliable 3rd parties. If it violates WP:BLP though than it needs to go. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A prime example of BLP violation. As User:Debate says, what makes this totally inadmissible is that he has not been convicted of anything. I dont care if the NYT thought it met their standards. It does not meet ours. DGG (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP concerns me as well, but there are sources for a lot of the material in the article. I think the most applicable policy would be WP:BLP1E, which would refer specifically to the incident in August 2007 where the subject became a person of interest (not a suspect as such) in an unsolved murder. I believe a lot of the coverage noted in the article is a result of that brief exposure in the media, and that, per precedent, the subject isn't notable in and of themselves due to that brief attention. Put another way: would the subject have an article if he just ran a website and creeped a lot of people out? I'm not so sure. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence12:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The notion of a flash-in-the-pan WP:ONEEVENT works a lot better if you don't have a year's worth of cited sources, as this article does. User:Debate's and DGG's assertions notwithstanding, I can find nothing in WP:BLP requiring criminal convictions before reporting on reliably sourced information about the subject's involvements with the authorities. Moreover, while WP:BLP correctly states that we should exercise due caution about outing negative comments that a subject might reasonably not want revealed, a fellow who proudly proclaims the information on his website and on the talk show circuit (and, indeed, the precipitating factors in the world noticing him in the first place) might reasonably be described as having blown the gaffe already. RGTraynor 16:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--a year? I don't see that; most of the news references are from August, 2007, when he was arrested in Los Angeles. Then there drib/drabs of follow-up in more minor local sources, not national news--one from September, 2007, one from November, 2007, one from March 2008, one from April 2008. That's a span of six months, with all the major coverage from about one week in August,2007. (Does seem like WP:ONEEVENT: the Los Angeles arrest, which didn't result in a conviction). -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article states he first came to the public eye in June 2007. The most recent cite is April 2008. My bad; that's only ten months. RGTraynor 19:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the article does say that--but there are no reference attached. (I only looked again at the references an hour ago when you posted "year," I didn't reread the article) Are there references that he "came to public attention in June, 2007" (and are they national)? And would that change the story arc much? He "came to attention," then he was arrested but not convicted, then he moved to Portland and was banned from a bookstore, according to a local news report in Portland. All the national news seems to be from a single week in August, 2007 when he was arrested. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is in and out of the news every month or two, for the past year. He's interviewed and talked about on numerous TV shows and by law enforcement agencies. He's not a "flash in the pan" or "fifteen minutes."
He's also not GS10. Just because we see the word 'pedophile' as negative and an attack, doesn't mean he does. He is a pedophile. That is a documented fact, and he freely admits and publicizes it. Whether he's been convicted of a crime is irrelevant to whether this is an "attack" page per G10.
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 article pretends that "AmEuropa" is a notable international concept, while in fact the article is nothing more than a sales platform created by a WP:single-purpose account for the promotion of a pair of books printed by notorious vanity press AuthorHouse. The entire historical archive of GoogleNews produces no sense of "AmEuropa" as a concept of international trade or culture [7]. If this were indeed a legitimate concept, then there would be WP:RS to support it. Qworty (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "two" "published" "books" don't mean a damned thing, because they are from the vanity press AuthorHouse, which means that all this guy did was open his checkbook and send them money for "publication." In other words, the most successful thing he ever wrote was that check. It's something anybody can do, and that's why it doesn't mean anything. Please see WP:SPS. Qworty (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article per WP:NOTNEWS. Two planes got extremely close to each other. If there were no injuries, I don't see how this is notable enough for Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to runway incursion. Almost a word-for-word copy of the AP news story that's linked. The planes were 1,250 feet (almost one-quarter of a mile) apart; no explanation in the story of how this was 2-3 seconds away from a collision, since the "good" pilot was reported as preparing to take off, rather than accelerating down the runway, but it would make a good algebra problem I guess. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 'Almost a word-for-word copy' makes this a copuvio. Do not merge since the incident is not notable. This happens all to often. See WP:AIRPORTS for inclusion guidelines that have consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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 on the strength of the newspaper mentions found by Paul Erik. This band looks like it may have trouble fitting the requirements of WP:MUSIC. I don't see that they have two or more recordings on a major label, for example. But if they have enough direct coverage in third-party sources, that would take precedence. I hope somebody will dig up the references whose names were found by Paul and add them to the article. (We need to know if they were in-depth articles or were just passing mentions). If this is not eventually done, another AfD might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Notability not established per WP:BAND, the only reference provided that isn't the band's website doesn't work, and a google search isn't promising. Roleplayer (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Definitely real - they play at my local every couple of months. I'm not convinced they warrant an article, though, despite the number of sources. — iridescent23:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are real all right; I was their original drummer! I am the author of this article which I posted because the band, and especially the eccentricities of Hugh himself, has a place in Glasgow culture and beyond. I am trying to build on this and would appreciate the article being given time so that others with experience of the band and its impact can contribute. Bugalowbill (talk —Preceding comment was added at 10:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I do not want to discourage you from editing, the Sandbox is a better place for working on articles before they are ready for mainspace. I cannot just take the word of another editor that this band or any of the facts about this band in this article are true unless there are reliable sources. --DerRichter (talk) 21:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accept the article is still work in progress, but I had placed a template describing it as a stub. As I said earlier, I hope that others will contribute as I think that will improve the piece. I have taken on borad your comments about sources and added some more which should be more independent.Bugalowbill (talk —Preceding comment was added at 09:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I searched for sources in a library database of newspaper articles. There are several mentions of this band over the years, mostly in articles about frontman Hugh Reed (Hugh O'Hagan). Examples include "Extra! extra! Reed all about it!", Matt Bendoris. The Sun. London (UK): Jan 16, 1998. pg. 46 (focuses on Hugh Reed's appearance in Trainspotting); "Look Hugh's wound up the Big Yin", The Sun. London (UK): May 8, 1998. pg. 35 (Reed talked about his band to actor Billy Connolly during a film shoot); Tom Shields & Ken Smith. The Herald. Glasgow (UK): Jan 25, 1999. pg. 13 (Reed is a fan of John Cale and gave him a Velvet Underpants album); "Profile: The musician, Hugh O'Hagan Election 99", Jim McBeth. The Scotsman. Edinburgh (UK): Apr 29, 1999. pg. 12 (Hugh Reed runs for office as a Scottish National Party candidate; article mentions touring with Debbie Harry of Blondie). I also discovered there is an entry about the band in The Great Scots Musicography by Martin C Strong, Mercat Press 2002. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)01:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to List of Dragonlance novels. This allows for future merging of its present contents to a parent article that might be agreed on by the consensus of editors. Some articles about this series are very well written and the contents of this article might have a hard time coming up to that standard, since it is just a plot summary. I'll let you guys sort that out, if any of you think the present content has value elsewhere. The present article doesn't meet WP:BK. The problem of the missing AfD tag shouldn't spoil this debate since it was corrected more than five days ago. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge possible to the subseries, "Raistlin Chronicles" unless there is something already set up more suitable--I defer to the experts on how to organize this mass of material. I see in WorldCat that only 230 libraries hold this, less than 1/4 that of the most popular novels in the overall series, so i doubt if this is one of the most important of the individual works. DGG (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. The single book probably fails WP:BK but, as part of the series of books in that setting written by one of the originators information should be included somewhere. Also the article itself doesn't appear to be tagged for AfD and I'm not sure how to fix it without messing up this particular discussion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to insert the template manually. I can only guess that the recent website/database problems were the cause. Thanks for pointing that out. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete unsourced one-liner for software, although one could read the grammar to think it a newspaper, anyway, nothing to indicate its notability Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Well, even I expect some context from an article, for example specifying the type of school! There is no prejudice to recreate the article with some sourced content. TerriersFan (talk) 23:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Tabloid news. The jokes over, the press has had their fun. No lasting notability here, just some editors having a sense of humor during a slow news day. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx)21:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, both for the notable goat itself and the public interest (which was itself the subject of BBC coverage). Huon (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The first !vote is from the nominator, so we can assume that's the deletion reason being offered (lack of notability). It's not required to notify the creator of the article, it's just considered polite to do so. As to the prior nom not being listed, WP:SOFIXIT.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see how anything has changed since the original, extensive, afd discussion. Notability is not temporary, furthermore, trivia is not a barrier to notability (see, for example Paris Hilton) :) nb. no admonishments for the WP:OSE ref please. Debate (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely the fact that it has been so widely reported in the press, and was a popular story at the time, makes it notable? If worldwide attention and popularity are not part of the criteria for notability, then why do we have articles on popstars and celebrities? Juice07 (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, he got his goat! This is great for the syndicated column News of the Weird, but the WP-worthy notability seems lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article about the dolphin that married a woman was just deleted.[8] This is similar and I feel the same way. I consider this story about this goat WP:RECENTISM, a tabliod story and something found in "weird news". Hardly an encyclopedia article. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep/MergeRedirect This subject of the article seems to be covered in Maco light. According to this article it is "one of North Carolina's most well-known and enduring supernatural phenomena", this feature also focusses on it.. Lots also covers the topic and a search of Google news gives lots of the other page also indicates the phenomenon is mentioned in works such as this book by Hans Holzer. Other sources can probably be found and it is possible to have a sourced stub at the least with the ones which are available. Guest9999 (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we already have a better article on the same subject. This one has problems of both style ("It all started on a balmy, foggy night"?!) and content - judging from the other article, Cleveland noted that the station had unique lights installed so the engineers wouldn't be distracted by the Maco light, but he didn't see the Maco light himself - compare this source. All that might be merge-worthy are the references. Keeping it as a redirect is also useless because it's an unlikely search term. Huon (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
First of all, Mr. McCracken, the title demonstrates different spellings, pronunciations, and exemplifies the use of the word in three languages. In the article this is explained. The first word deals with only the town of Reiff, not the linguistics of the word. The last word's article is an album by a band, it has nothing to do with the word itself, its origins or its meanings.
Morepaint (talk) 21:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now dealing with Mr. Ju66l3r. This entry does have dictionaries as cited sources, but the information has been compliled from these verifiable sources and is now in one easy-to-reach place. The interpretations of the meaning of each similar word qualifies this entry as being worthy of an encyclopedic nature, not merely a dictionary entry.
Morepaint (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:DICDEF carefully. Quote: Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides. All I see here is a usage guide to different spellings of the same pronunciation. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This guy's only role was voicing Jon and a few other characters in Garfield and Friends. While that alone might make him notable, there is absolutely no other info out there about him; no date of birth, no biographical info, et cetera; therefore, I think he fails notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)20:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There actually is some information about him, if you dig for it. This site has no less than three (!) interviews with Huge. I started listening to the first one, and it provides enough biographical material to write several interesting paragraphs. All but the last two articles here mention him, and it seems like he also wrote a Garfield book. He probably doesn't strictly pass WP:BIO, but I still think there's enough information to justify an independent article. Zagalejo^^^01:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as I'm not sure the interviews count as 3rd party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasynnash2 (talk • contribs)
Well, wouldn't any information about Huge have to come from interviews? It's not like he's had a historian following him around, taking notes while hiding under tables. ;) In truth, I'm not really opposed to making this a redirect for the time being. I'd just like to understand your argument. Zagalejo^^^17:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My "argument" is that interviews with the subject of an article are primary sources and not 3rd party sources (or at least that is my understanding). I could of course be wrong. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is my belief that the interviewer is a valid source of information because he is a professional DJ in the broadcast field. While not as well known as DJ such as Howard Stern or Rick Dees, he would still qualify. However more sources about Mr Huge would be needed, possibly searching under industry trade mags as he appears to be a notable producer and professional in the broadcast field as well. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Probable hoax about a "rare genetic disorder" spelt two different ways. No references supplied, and I can find none. Searches in Google Scholar draw a blank for either auraphilia or aurafilia or the supposed Latin name of the disease Sonusaura Genisis-imperfecta; there is nothing in Medinfo ("Did you mean Australia?") and nothing relevant in Google. Some searches suggest the Latin name should be spelt Sensaura genesis-imperfecta which looks more plausible, but there are no matches for that either.
The article quotes an interview with "The French/English artist Spencer Anthony". He too is elusive - the only references I have found concern the works of one Ryan Gander, which feature " ...fictional characters Spencer Anthony, Marie Aurore or Abbé Faria..." - see frieze.com, ikon-gallery and smba.nl.
The article was input by one user and supported by another who popped up on the talk page to say he was a sufferer. Neither has any other edits. I tagged it as a hoax soon after it appeared yesterday, and left notes for both users asking for confirmation; none has appeared.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If I understand it correctly, this article is about the labor history of ambulance workers in Portland, Oregon. I don't think this is very encyclopedic, and this is probably too much detail for an article. I haven't found an article this could be merged into either. AecisBrievenbus19:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Union, emergency workers at odds," Oregonian, 25 Oct 07
Of course, we must remember Wikipedia is not a news source. I see two bursts of news coverage around this topic, one in 2003 and one in 2007. If that's all there is, the subject may not be notable. But I suspect a thorough search would turn up more. As a general rule, an article on the "Labor history of Industry X in City X" seems encyclopedic to me. Just because we don't have many of these articles doesn't mean we shouldn't.Northwesterner1 (talk) 01:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good answer. I was trying to think of things this could be merged to, but the only things I could come up with seemed to be opening a can of worms. Perhaps a more general Labor history of Oregon would be a good incubator for things like this. We might be able to interest Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour in whipping up something. With what little I know about unions in Oregon, I think there is fertile ground for an article. There have been some serious teacher, transit and nursing strikes in the state. And I think state workers struck a time or two. The Wobblies were big here for a time as well. Katr67 (talk) 01:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not rewrite this article and link it to Amalagamated Transit Union, National Emergency Medical Services Association, and International Brotherhood Of Teamsters? The labor history of a group of people who frequently change unions is of interest and relevance to those in labor circles who track NLRB Representation Change petitions. It also is of interest to those looking for information on these unions and how they are perceived by both these workers and others wishing to join various unions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.89.151 (talk) 04:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may help in rewriting this article if you could provide a source showing that the labor history of this group of people who frequently change unions is of particular interest to union organizers and labor historians. Are you aware of any newspaper or magazine articles, or scholarly articles, focusing on this particular group in that context? (above and beyond news articles reporting daily events surrounding particular negotiations) Northwesterner1 (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
List of bands that play a very obscure genre- most of them, rather than being "Christian metalcore", appear to be metalcore bands that happen to be Christian. In fact, most references to Christian metalcore online appear to be the same- see this, for instance, one of the few even close to decent sources mentioning it. In any case, whether or not the genre exists, this list serves no purpose that a category couldn't, but was certainly being used to list an awful lot of redlink bands. J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list could be entirely turned into a category, and thus serves no real purpose on its own. A short list of notable Christian metalcore bands could be listed on the article itself, along with a link to the category. — λ (talk) 21:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article about a book was recreated after being speedied as blatant advertising [9], so we are going through the formal AfD process this time. Due to severe lack of WP:RS, this book fails WP:BK. Google throws up only blogs and press releases, while GoogleNews throws up nothing but press releases, except for a single review in a small Arizona newspaper: [10]--despite the fact that the book has been out for five months. The fact that the article was created by a WP:single-purpose account might indicate an attempt at promotion here. In any case, WP:BK is not satisfied. Qworty (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I agree does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Even in the four references I found, they talked more about Ms Rouda rather than the book itself. A mention about the book in Ms Rouda’s article would be appropriate. However, I believe we may also see that article here at Afd shortly. ShoesssSTalk20:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet criteria for inclusion according to WP:BK. Furthermore, reads like an advertisement. The source listed by JeremyMcCracken is a 19th place ranking on a monthly best seller list for a particular niche market based on data provided by a single non-notable vendor of the book; it should hardly count towards notability. — λ (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There was no support for the article being kept. The page lacks non-trivial coverage of this body and no reliable sources dealing significantly with it were produced during the AfD. Clear failure to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Sorry to say. Was able to find one source in the Hindu News, but that was about it. If someone can provide sourcing I have no problem changing my opinion. ShoesssSTalk20:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Will Ferrell. It's hard to take the contents of this article very seriously, but the material will still be available in the history. By editor consensus it might be merged into Will Ferrell or somewhere else appropriate. 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Where to begin? First of all, there is no third film; Semi-Pro was not it, and no one knows if a third one is coming. That leaves this article basically a combination of brief recaps of the two films with a completely originally researchedsynthesis describing similarities between the two films (most of which are beyond trivial and probably even coincidental). My guess is that this was a throwaway reference made by Ferrell one day and not an indication of a broad plan for a Named Trilogy. PowersT19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Will Ferrell. I was leaning keep, but there's not enough material in the article worthy of standing on its own. With the sources McCracken just provided, it'll make a really nice section on Ferrell's page - and should the presumed trilogy ever gain specific acclaim or notoriety (like a special box set with extra features or something), then we can consider splitting it out. Duncan1800 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find nothing to support the claim that these films form any sort of official trilogy. It's like trying to create a trilogy out of selected Jerry Lewis films in which he plays a goofball. The term is being used, according to Ferrell, but I'm not seeing it as something that is being treated as anything official. If it's not official, then it falls into neologism territory. 23skidoo (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's brief plot summaries which exist elsewhere and a bunch of OR/trivia. I also don't see this being some sort of official trilogy so the concept itself of the article may be invalid. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Will Ferrell. The trilogy does exist, but at this point of time there is not enoguh to warrant it's own page. Maybe when the third film is announced it can come back to its own article. It's rather pointless to talk about a trilogy without three films --PlasmaTwa202:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability asserted but not demonstrated. I explained this to the article's creator a couple of months ago but he has not provided any grounds in accordance with WP:MUSIC for keeping the article. An anon editor removed a WP:PROD notice stating "the sheer amount of important musicians that Aminoss has performed for grants notability to this article", but notability is not inherited and I don't think that being an experienced backing musician counts. Prove me wrong? It also has no independent sources and I didn't see any WP:RS when I tried a Google search myself. - Fayenatic(talk)18:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. It is a notable neologism, as evidenced by usage of media outlets such as The Register - a google search is instructive. Parts of the article need to be cited better but deletion is not a solution to the problem. --Gurubrahma (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Not enough coverage to be notable. I shudder at the thought that all those redlinks should become articles because this article exists, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. Article is about software that was purchased by other companies twice and does not appear to be notable. Sources are either press releases or simple product descriptions. TN‑X-Man18:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comments: 1) Given the large holes in wikicoverage of creative professionals outside of North America, arguing non-notability from not having an article is dubious logic at best. 2) There's no AfD notice on the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question to nominator: Could you explain how, in your opinion, having four independent, third-party sources discussing the work and its importance doesn't demonstrate notability? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The subject of the article (dready doodle) has received coverage in sources which are independent of the subject. The notability of the creator of doodle is not really relevant! Nk.sheridanTalk21:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Google hits 109000. Google news hits 714. Subject is far more notable than like Henri Paul. If necessary, I will dig hundreds of articles which are far less notable. If separate articles exist for TV serial fictional characters, why this subject is tagged as non-notable? Wikipedia is encyclopedia of information on any subject. Thanks. Kareeshma (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BIO. She is the subject of uncountable, reliable sources. The article seems also well referenced at this point. Being notable for just one thing is utterly uninteresting as long as this results in the amount of coverage she obviously has. Arsenikk(talk)
Keep. It wouldn't hurt to wipe the slate clean and start over from an editorial standpoint, providing inline sources, but actual deletion shouldn't be necessary. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx)18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No sources about the subject; at best, passing mentions in books on conspiracy theories. The main reference seems to consist of a mention of a poem thus titled, without a discussion of the significance of the term. The other "references" are a list of books with "Hidden Hand" in the title, many of them clearly nor related to conspiracy theories. If we remove the clutter, what remains amounts to a dictionary definition. Huon (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- conflation of several different titles and things. No reliable sources are cited to explain why it is important, or even to define the term to any precision. Bearian (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Original author describes it as a content fork that was rejected by consensus at Karma[13], what I would call a POV Fork. Has been tagged as lacking sources for a year and a half, and without seeing any substantial sources on this topic (and I haven't), it sure seems like original research to me. Pastordavid (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read Spanish well, but I'm not much impressed with the Spanish page used as a source. The two English language web pages might be sources for an article on "Karma in Rosicrucianism" but they aren't good sources for this article. There might be sources out there ... but the current state of the article is not impressive. I'm not sure the article manages to actually convey more information than the current section Karma#Western interpretation of the main article. GRBerry18:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That "Spanish" page is actually Portuguese, my native language. But your instincts are correct - it's nothing to be impressed about. This article needs a serious rewrite before notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not much more than "here are some things in Christianity that are like karma". Nothing indicating that any of them has really been the object of serious scholarly comparison. --Dhartung | Talk22:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Here are some things in AfD that are Delete." Reads like an essay. Relevant content (if any) should be cleaned up(not part of AfD, by the way) and added to Karma. I doubt there'd be enough to violate WP:UNDUE. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Dhartung's reasons. No sources, just a bit of comparison. That and the fact that even this article says that most Christians believe the doctrine of karma to be heretical, an article on "karma in Christianity" isn't warranted. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Few if any problems have been asserted with respect to this article that cannot be addressed through rewriting, merging or redirecting it. These actions do not require deletion. Sandstein 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is non-existent as a fascist propaganda tool, capitalizing on the old "Mare Nostrum" tendencies of Italian irredentism that never materialized. The real existence of an Italian "zone of control" is extremely doubtful considering real WW2 events were a string of Italian strategic defeats. The article is just another in a series of articles trying to increase the appearance of Italian control over Corsica, Malta, Dalmatia, and even the Mediterranean sea as a whole. The article title can be compared to something like "German Greater Reich", or "Greater German Lands" in Nazi Germany. The real history of the Mediterranean War is that of a list of stalemates and minor Italian losses, interrupted now and again by a really catastrophic defeat (the Battles of Taranto and Cape Matapan being more famous examples).
The article does not address the real historic use of the phrase "Mare Nostrum", but instead speaks about fictional Italian control over the Eastern Mediterranean in a highly biased way. --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear as to your point here. Do you claim that the article is "a fascist propaganda tool", or that Italian use of the term in period was never intended as "a fascist propaganda tool"? The use of it by the Italian Fascists is well-documented, and well cited here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up most of the article. I feel that the sections on the wartime army, navy and airforce are not needed. The article is about a territory subject to Italy during the Second World War. Hence, apart from a brief gist of Italy's conquests in thje Mediterranean, not much is required.-RavichandarMy coffee shop17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, the Mediterranean sea was at no point actually controlled by the Axis, but parts of it were at best a "no man's land" for a brief period after the evacuation of Crete and that mostly due to the German Luftwaffe. The article does not address the use of "Mare Nostrum" as a propaganda tool during WW2, or a Roman phrase, but instead speaks of it as if it were an actual territorial entity. If one should create an article about the extent of WW2 Italian control on the Mediterranean, then it should be entitled something like "WW2 Italian control of the Mediterranean", if it was to be about the use of the phrase "Mare Nostrum", then it should be entitled "Mare Nostrum" (Romans are not Italians). But these are totally different articles we're talking about. --DIREKTOR(TALK)17:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would find it easier to believe that renaming was the only issue here if the article hadn't been tagged for deletion instead. I simply cannot believe that the real issue here is that the article's tone is non-neutral by being too credulous towards the Italian Fascists. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, the article is not about "Mare Nostrum" or "Italian control of the Mediterranean" its a POV hibrid, and if we were to rename it and rewrite it, wouldn't that be a whole other article? --DIREKTOR(TALK)18:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's a "POV hybrid" ? If you claim POV issues, then we work to fix it - That's no reason to delete. I simply to fail to see what your core issue is here, one that is so strong as to demand the deletion of a non-trivial article. Here's the opening para for starters:
Now what's the problem with that? I see this as a genuine name or concept in period, a notable concept worthy of discussion, and a reasonable scope for such an article. What am I missing here? I'm no historical expert on it - there may be subtle name-changing issues, there's clearly as much rancour floating around here as there is on British Isles/islands/countries, but I see the core concept of this article as being sound.
If we have an issue with "Romans vs. Il Duce", then we disambiguate appropriately. As it stood, this article seemed to have avoided such issues and was clearly defined in its time, politics and geography.
First of all, "Mare Nostrum", does not apply only to parts of the Mediterranean under Italian control, it is another name for the whole of the Mediterranean sea used by the Romans and Italian fascists, with the latter never achieving anything close to it. This is an important distinction, which shows that Mare Nostrum never actually existed, even sections of the Mediterranean that are stated in the article as "under Italian control" are a highly disputable point.
Second, "Italian Mare Nostrum" was never the phrase, but "Mare Nostrum". I have no problems with the "greater xxxx" articles, they are about pretensions, whereas this article is apparently about a real-live (huge) area of the Mediterranean that was never under "Italian control". If we change the article so much that it no longer talks about a "real" territorial entity (and move it to "Mare Nostrum"), but about territorial pretensions (Roman era-Mediterranean, and fascist propaganda) then I would not see a problem, but of course this would more or less be a new article. How can I clarify my point further? --DIREKTOR(TALK)23:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So there are two issues: Geographical size of the controlled area was smaller than the area named (accepting that "control" was pretty flakey too), secondly that the name might have been better as "Mare Nostrum (WW2 Italian Fascist period)". I can't see either of these as supporting deletion. I don't even see enough to support a rename - with a good introduction to avoid possible ambiguity, the name "Italian Mare Nostrum" has simplicity to commend it. I accept that Il Duce's eyes were bigger than his belly over this one, but the contradiction between his geographical hopes and the achieved actuality wasn't so different as to make this choice of name harmful, given a suitable into para. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Perhaps I should have explained more thoroughly in the intro, my apologies, please see my reply to User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick below) Like I said: if someone was to create an article dealing with the Roman/Italian concept of "Mare Nostrum", fine by me, if someone was to create an article dealing with the extent of Italian control in the Mediterranean, fine by me, if someone was to create an article about Italian (historic) pretensions in the Mediterranean, also fine, but this article uses selective representation of real facts to present an incorrect picture of a period of Italian control over the Mediterranean Sea and calls it Mare Nostrum in a strange bid for justification by showing the whole thing off as an article about a propaganda tool, which it is not. --DIREKTOR(TALK)11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a genuine article on a genuine term of the time. NPOV is obviously tricky here, and a need to make changes could well be identified (if appropriate), but this is no candidate for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article does not fail WP:POV. I agree that it is not about the ancient use of Mare Nostrum, and was in my opinion an unhistorically correct use of the term, but that is my POV (as well as, perhaps, that of the nominor). However this is a serious article about an aspect of Italian fascist propaganda. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not the best article I've ever read, but I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. It's pretty NPOV and is referenced. What's the problem? Coemgenus21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. The concept was a fascist idea? So surely it would be expected that the content would reflect this? However, I have not looked at the article in detail, but if it is written in a POV, then change it. If it is referenced, then I see no reason for its deletion. ItaliaIrredenta (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My problem with this article is that it takes a legitimate concept, that of the mare nostrum, but it is not an article about how that concept was viewed in Fascist Italy, it is mainly just a list of "stuff that happened in the area that Mussolini and his cronies viewed as the Italian sea". (I mean, come on, what is that photo of Teseo Tesei doing there?) Imagine Lebensraum being a list of all the battles that happened in the area that Hitler considered his countryfolk's living space - that would be ridiculous. So I feel that two thirds of the article should just be binned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, perhaps we all of us have a misunderstanding on our hands: I do not claim that:
1) "ItalianMare Nostrum" did not exist as a propaganda tool (and perhaps a goal) for the Italian fascists
2) Italy didn't control areas of the Mediterranean coast and perhaps even a section of the Mediterranean Sea. These facts are, as everyone says, well referenced in the text and we all know that they are true (of course)
It is the fact that this article takes actual historical events, represents them in a selective and POV manner, and then uses them along with the fascist propaganda tool to create the image of an actual territorial entity spanning roughly along the borders of the (largely incorrect and imprecise) map at the start of the page.
If someone was to create an article dealing with the Roman/Italian concept of "Mare Nostrum", fine by me, if someone was to create an article dealing with the extent of Italian control in the Mediterranean, fine by me, if someone was to create an article about Italian (historic) pretensions in the Mediterranean, also fine, but this article uses selective representation of real facts to present an incorrect picture of a period of Italian control over the Mediterranean Sea and calls it Mare Nostrum in a strange bid for justification by showing the whole thing off as an article about a propaganda tool, which it is not.
All in all, this is not a simple matter as it may appear at first glance, I did not nominate for no reason or out of some "POV fit". The article looks rather large, well referenced and fine at first consideration, but this is a pretty clever idea for selective representation of info. In any event, if the article were to be changed so that it only and fully centers on any of the real subjects I mentioned above I would not mind, but this would be a nearly complete rewrite, so I nominated for deletion. --DIREKTOR(TALK)01:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the title, split the content. Redirect to article Mediterranean Sea. To avoid any problems: user DIREKTOR informed me about this discussion, since I was often involved in similar topics. My opinion is, that there's no need for special article about this, since this is just another name for Mediterranean Sea. We don't have to make special articles about e.g. Nizza and Nice or about Straßburg and Strasbourg. It's bad to dedicate whole article to the fascist (!) renaming of particular toponym - that should deserve few lines in the article "Mediterranean Sea"; otherwise, it may look that we give veiled support to such ideology (if we keep the specialized article). Further, the article doesn't speak a lot about the sea itself: it speaks more about Italy's ideology and expansionism, and military campaigns. According to that, we can split the articlecontent (not delete it) into several articles, that are listed in the section "See also" (*Military history of Italy during World War II, Italian Empire, Regio Esercito (WWII), Regia Aeronautica, Regia Marina), and to articles Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946), Italian Social Republic and Italian Fascism. But, if this "Italian Mare Nostrum" was a special administrative unit, that we can keep the article. Since it's not the case, let's just make a redirect. Otherwise, we're making bad ...precedent (have I used the proper iurist term?): e.g. in that case Adriatic Sea may get new articles, Mare nostrum dalmaticum and Golfo di Venezia. Kubura (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree with a redirect to Mediterranean Sea. The "Mediterranean Sea" is the universal name of a geographical entity. Mare Nostrum is a political viewpoint about that geographical entity, first held by the Romans, then later revived by the Italians. I don't know much about how it was viewed in Roman times, but it was definitely a key factor in Italian expansion, before and after the rise of fascism. Just like lebensraum, it deserves its own article. It is clearly a term that historians use [14]. The problem is that on Wikipedia, it is a project page for "stuff that happened in the Mediterranean during Mussolini's rule". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kubura may have a point here, though I also disagree with a merge with Mediterranean Sea, national pretensions should be left out of there. Mabe we ought to simply move the article to "Mare Nostrum" and write abou the phrase's use as both a Roman concept and a fascist propaganda too, while also removing all non-related military history info to the Military history of Italy during World War II. This would remove the selective use of info and would create a worthy Wiki article about a historical concept, sans the WW2 control implications. We would of course have to de-POV-ize the military history part, Italians actually made a rather poor show in the Mediterranean. --DIREKTOR(TALK)12:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and start again. This is a concept that is notable and worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia. There should be an article on this subject. However, the article as it stands - presenting the concept as something that existed - is too far from the truth to be salvageable. Yes, Wiki is about verifiability, not truth, so let's try verifying what the article says. Just try. Comments above that it is well referenced are sadly misled. The reason that there are no online sources (the written references are dubious, to say the least) is that there are no sources that support what the article says, especially its claims that "in 1940, Mussolini started to expand the Italian maritime control on the central Mediterranean" (entirely untrue) and the "ensuing Battle of the Mediterranean had many changes of fortune" (untrue) and "the Italian Navy obtained for some months the nearly complete control of the central Mediterranean" (entirely untrue). If any of the above had been true, Malta, in Italy's backyard, would have fallen. It didn't fall, despite Luftwaffe dominance of the skies. Why not? Because the Allied navies dominated the seas. Ergo, there was no Mare Nostrum. QED. Yes, Malta was a close run thing, but nobody outside this Wikipedia article claims anything close to what this article says. Google it and see. So this article is not what it should be - a passing reference to an abstract concept - but a claim that this thing existed. Sorry, no. It should go, and let's start again with a blank page. However, given all the above opinions (I'd ask you all to review your comments after looking into the subject, not just the article) I suspect that it will be kept. Pity, as this article does Wikipedia a disservice. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename/Cleanup. Delete because of wrong concept. Key words are "Mare Nostrum". This Latin phrase deserves an article about its usage through history. But that's all. There are already articles about Italian navy and air forces. Zenanarh (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment lol am I dreaming or is the Battle of Cape Matapan not even mentioned here, just some insignificant Italian victories... glorification of the (in reality rather poor) Italian war effort. --DIREKTOR(TALK)16:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was there a few days ago, but was removed when one editor took it upon themselves to delete three major sections. These ought to be reverted. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes it must have demanded a lot of work, its a very clever "ploy". Selective use of info should not be allowed, whether hard-worked for or not. The article is dedicated to the glorification of the Italian war effort, however it may have been, and uses only parts of history, forgets others or mentions them in a POV way, and covers it all by calling it an article about a fascist slogan or catchphrase. --DIREKTOR(TALK)21:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, ItaliaIrredenta, we need some quality control here. If hard word is all that is required for inclusion in this encylopaedia, then why don't we invite the five year olds at our local primary school to put some articles up? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly not, but the result of this is obviously going to be keep as there is no consensus, so how about we close it and then put merge tags on the two articles? By the natural process of editing and review by others, the crap should get weeded out in time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I do not contest the fact that "Mare Nostrum" was a propaganda phrase used by Italians, i.e. the fascist government. I contest the article's representation of the phrase as a name for the Mediterranean Sea being under Italian domination. Mare Nostrum (and "Italian" Mare Nostrum) is not a name for a part of the Mediterranean under Italian control, it is a colloquial name for the whole of the Mediterranean. And though that might have been Mussolini's ambition, it was never achieved. I repeat: I would at all mind an article about the propaganda phrase, but this is selective represenatation of facts. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sigh* looks like I blew it with the intro on this one, will try something else... the article cannot stay in this formulation. --DIREKTOR(TALK)14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see I’ve been overtaken by events: I found this article following a link from Second Battle of Sirte a couple of days ago, and was lost for words. But now we are here, I support deletion. The only value I could see in the page is as a discussion of the term, which I see has been addressed here . The rest of it is just a POV fork, and says nothing not said more clearly at Battle of the Mediterranean. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Read Battle of Cape Matapan. Italians had 3 heavy crusiers, Zara, Pola and Fiume, the most biggest battleships of that kind in the world in that moment, pride of Regia Marina. Two of them (Zara and Fiume) sank in that battle in just 3 minutes in very funny circumstances. Not equiped with radars, these ships were attacked by the Britains during the night hours from very close distance. Per some analysis these giants rapidly sank not because of the direct hits (impossible in 3 minutes), but rather because of its bad construction. Not prepared to attack and "invisible" enemy, these giants tried to escape by sharpe angle manoeuvre in full speed. Problem was that the heaviest cannons were placed as first at the bows of the ships. So monsters simply made double axel jump and dissapeared, both in the same moment. It seems Italian Mare Nostrum was controlled by anyone, but not Italians; they were not able to control even their own ships. Zenanarh (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. It's pretty NPOV and is well referenced. The concepts help explain Italian actions during WWII. Definitively: Keep. --Popovichi (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Appears to fail WP:CORP; 195 g-hits with the majority referencing other uses of "Arc Diversified"; those that do mention this company do so in a "trivial or incidental" fashion; coverage is not in detail, as required by WP:N and CORP. Also COI issues with main author (Pnpointer) and article reporting "Pat Pointer - Vice President of Business Development". ЭLСОВВОLДtalk15:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ЭLСОВВОLД please help me understand how this article fails WP:CORP. The guideline states Non-commercial: "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by sources that are reliable and independent of the organization. In other words, they satisfy the primary criterion above."" ARC Diversified is a Non profit / Non-commercialorganization. The company's focus is the people, as referenced in the United States Congressional record. As far as CIO, the article is written in a fair and balanced format. All aspects of the company are plainly stated and referenced. "Sometimes you gotta toot your horn" -Dolly Parton. Please help me understand so I can make this and other pieces better. (Pnpointer (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep – the company has met the Notability requirements with the statement:"…is the first non-profit agency in the country to operate a USDA approved (PL No. 47-011-02).”” This is proven by the attached reference from DLA (Defense Logistics Agency a division of the Department of Defense) as shown here [24]. I inline cited the article and added the DLA piece to the reference list. ShoesssSTalk15:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not notability, that's importance (a distinct difference, articulated by, for example, CSD#A7). Notability on Wikipedia is not a common language term, but a defined term where the definition is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This company does not have significant coverage as defined and required by WP:N. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk15:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I believe you are looking at the general guideline with regards to Notability. And you are right, you could make a case of non-notability. However, if you look at the classification, with regards to Organizations, as shown here [25], I believe that ARC meets these requirements. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk17:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakly, perhaps, but CORP is a guideline and, thus, subordinate to WP:N, a policy. Without passing WP:N, I'd argue CORP considerations are moot.ЭLСОВВОLДtalk17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. Given the claims made in the article for the business's work with the disabled, you would think that some kind of reliable sources would exist covering that aspect. None are cited. This is a brick and mortar business making consumer goods: again, you'd expect this to generate some coverage, none is in the article. Google News seems not to have heard of them, though. Conflict of interest skews the article obviously; one local business newspaper source found in general Google mentions a bankruptcy that goes unmentioned in the article in chief. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noteability to include: 1.) First non-profit agency in the country to operate a USDA approved facility for the production of manufactured goods sold to the feeding programs of the US Government and private industry.; 2.) five (5) verifiable objective references, 3.) one (1) held trademark per USPTO; 4.) google news articles; 5.) award from US Government organization abilityone.gov....the article has merit, please pardon my weak editingPnpointer (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not established. Notability requires "Significant coverage [which] means that sources address the subject directly in detail". These are the current references:
Keep Agree with the keeps above that being the first non-profit to operate such a facility establishes notability. Also, this article is very new, so giving it some more time might help editors find additional sources. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORP. None of the references provided are reliable, significant and independent of the source. News search finds nothing. If the authors want to keep this, find two such sources to show notability, and if they can show notability, I will change my vote. Arsenikk(talk)00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And this one [26]. DLA is an independent government agency under the command of the Department of Defense.
The third is hosted by the company; how can we ensure it is being accurately represented? How can we ensure ARC has rights to host it? We need to source directly to the reference itself. The other two are government sites. Isn't it curious that not even references from local newspapers or magazines have been provided? ЭLСОВВОLДtalk12:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recent newspaper articles have been provided. In this age for-profit newspapers, archived articles (older than 10 years) have rights and costs. They can't just be pulled up and broadcast on the web. Is the newspaper the authority of notability? Are you saying a congressman and Abilityone isn't good enough? (Pnpointer (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I am sorry if I am misreading your comment, could you clarify? To me it comes across as you saying that the information is being fabricated by Pnpointer and myself. Thanks ShoesssSTalk13:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ARC is hosting only the front cover and page 36. I haven't said, nor do I believe, that this information has been fabricated. The issue is about accurate representation; is information being cherry picked? What's in the other (at least) 35 pages? Where is confirmation that ARC has rights to post this information or proof it's PD? We can't knowingly link to copyvios. The recent newspaper articles do not discuss the company directly and/or in detail. There's no requirement, by the way, that sources can be obtained gratis. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk14:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey – Thanks for clearing that-up. Let me address your concerns. First, the information is free use. If you go to DLA website, as shown here [27] you will notice that the statement states “Information presented is considered public information and may be distributed or copied unless otherwise specified. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. “In other words ARC can post on there website. And this information can be verified by following the policy thread from the “Loglines” website as shown here [28]. So there is no problem with regards to copyright or usage. Regarding LOGLINES, I understand your concern that they are not a well-know publication. However, in the industry, primarily Defense Industry, they are extremely well respected – creditable - and reliable. As much as any Government agency can be :-). Hope this clears up the use of the information. Thanks. ShoesssSTalk15:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable event. There are a few G-hits, but none turning up any reliable sources, and all the hits come from the several affiliated websites pushing this walk. The article reads like a promotional brochure for the event, unsurprising since this was created by an SPA (User:W4V) for whom pushing this event is the sole Wiki activity. Fails WP:ORG, WP:V, probably WP:SPAM and WP:COI. RGTraynor 15:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any COI spam should be speedied honestly.. if the topic is really valuable someone who doesn't have a personal stake will add the information.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably popular event. Organized in 12 cities in Canada with 5,000 participants, replicated in 6 cities in Australia and few other cities in the United States. But, sure the article needs change in tone of writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compuneo (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC) — Compuneo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: What evidence do you have to offer to back up the assertion that this is a popular event? Articles about it in the newspapers? Any media coverage at all? RGTraynor 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: As far as I can see there are two references mentioned in the article itself. One of those being from the website of Legislative Assembly of Ontario gives it significance, and the other reference in a radio channel gives it media coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Compuneo (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference is the type of casual mention of warm and fuzzy things all legislators make, the second a public service ad. WP:ORG fundamentally holds that "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." RGTraynor 20:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not have enough notability to consider it verifiable, because it still is too small of an event. 5,000 participants is nothing compared to some of the more notable events that go on around the World, like Oktoberfest in Germany etc. Razorflame17:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable show on the Vassar College radio station. A miniscule 12 Google hits, none to a reliable source, and none proffered save for the inevitable Myspace page and website. Fails WP:V, WP:WEB at the least. RGTraynor 14:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which has been done. It strikes me that it gives undue weight to a single student show from a single period in the station's history - how many shows come and go on a college station? - but sorting that out can be left to the editors active on that article. RGTraynor 14:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been revised with cross references that check out. Produced by notable artist Noah Lyon not a typical "come & go" college show but a freeform show run by high school students on a station with standard college programing... highly unusual. Referred to simply as "Retard Riot" google shows about 12,000 hits 13:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistersmartypants (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all. Consensus is that this is not a useful or discriminate classification of people, and partly redundant to List of atheists. To allow for selective mergers to List of atheists, I'm implementing this closure with a redirection to List of atheistsfor now. After a suitable time for merging has passed, the redirects should be nominated for speedy deletion with reference to this AfD. Sandstein 10:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of nontheists violates WP:OR. The list claims some famous people as "nontheists". Interestingly very few people call themselves nontheists. Most people in the list are atheists who have expressed disbelief in God. I am also nominating the following related pages because they claim famous atheists as "nontheists" and they are totally irrelevant.
Weak keep: A quick scan shows that most of the statements are sourced, meaning it is not an OR violation. I have not thoroughly examined the sources, so I don't know if they say something different, but it seems OK on the surface...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp14:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to List of atheists; every one of those sources references atheists. I realize this would not be a fun task for the closing nom.
Delete because 1) We have an overlapping List of atheists, 2) Lists are not a good idea here, because there are probably thousands of notable atheists in the world - categories serve much better here. 3) The idea of a "nontheism" was probably unknown to many persons in the list - we possibly conduct an original research here.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The idea of a "nontheism" was probably unknown to many persons in the list". I'm not sure of your point here. They qualify for the list if and only if they do/did not believe in deities. Awareness of the term is not part of its definition. Ilkali (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but WP:OR says: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." It looks like the lists are a synthesis of biographies and serve as a support of the idea of "nontheism" while nobody in the list defines himself/herself as nontheist. I do not see another reason why to mantain separate list of nontheists and list of atheists.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It looks like the lists are a synthesis of biographies and serve as a support of the idea of "nontheism" while nobody in the list defines himself/herself as nontheist". This position seems untenable. If a man says he has a wife, is it original research to describe him as a husband? Likewise, if he says he has no belief in gods, how is it original research to describe him as a nontheist? "I do not see another reason why to mantain separate list of nontheists and list of atheists". The problem with the term atheist is its ambiguity. It's meant a lot of things over the years, and still has at least two distinct meanings today. So while it's my opinion that there should be only one list, I think it should be of nontheists rather than atheists, purely to avoid the terminological issues that the latter would cause. Ilkali (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction in labelling a religious person as a nontheist, since not all religions involve deities. Ilkali (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is no "inexplicably", or in fact any "mixing" at all, since someone who practices an Eastern religion but does not believe in god is still an atheist/agnostic by definition. This makes about as much sense as saying that it inexplicably mixes atheists and agnostics with people who play football - your statement assumes that people practicing religions cannot be atheists or agnostics, which is incorrect. So even if we deleted this article, we'd still have to move those people to whatever article we use in its place. Mdwh (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with lists of agnostics, atheists, etc. This is actually already in progress. The list format is useful, I think, because it presents people with information pertinent to the entrant's nontheism that would be absent from or difficult to find in a biographical article. And the term 'nontheist' is useful in that it cuts through the ambiguity surrounding terms like 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Ilkali (talk) 16:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I worked on List of nontheists I tried to limit it to people who used that exact term or who said they were "not a theist" without further specification. I'd even wanted consideration of people, like James Tiptree, Jr, who believed in some supernatural concepts yet rejected the idea of a personal God/Gods. (This idea, I believe, was mostly rejected) This was difficult and if I'd done it strictly it might've amounted to just three people. (Charles T. Beaird, Eugenie Scott, Sherwin Wine. Possibly Bishop Spong too) So I'm fine with deletion, but I guess I'd also be fine if there are actually enough for a reasonable list.--T. Anthony (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the first time I have heard the word "nontheists." I am guessing it is not really a very notable expression. Redddogg (talk) 12:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term might not be widely known, but its meaning is quite clear from its composition and it usefully cuts through ambiguity over terms like 'atheist' and 'agnostic'. Ilkali (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how long it's been around, but I remember "nontheist" gained some support among some humanist and skeptic groups. I think the idea was the term "unites" the agnostic element with the atheist one. Although logically "nontheism" would seem to include everything that's not theism, including deism and pantheist, I don't see it used that way.--T. Anthony (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd understood "theism" as meaning belief in an interventionist God/gods. (Meaning God(s) that can influence events within the Universe and may do so) However you're right that that it seems to be belief in any kind of God/gods. Okay I guess nontheism is just agnostics and atheists.--T. Anthony (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nontheism is disbelief in a personal god. It is possible for a nontheist to believe in an impersonal god or non-theistic god. This list is quite misleading. List of nontheists should be deleted for the betterment of Wikipedia. RS190010:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should atheists be in this list? The broad definition of nontheism is the definition of atheism. Including atheists in this list is misleading. RS190011:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the part where I said "Merge with lists of agnostics, atheists, etc"? It's the first thing I said. Do you agree that terms like atheist and agnostic are extremely ambiguous? If we have lists of 'atheists' and 'agnostics', people are always going to disagree with the inclusion criteria. Do you agree that an atheist is by definition a nontheist? What is misleading about labelling them as such? Ilkali (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali, why don't you get it? Those who say "I am an atheist" will be included in List of atheists and those who say "I am an agnostic" will be listed in List of agnostics. Where is the problem? If we have this list there will be far more problems. RS190011:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People expect inclusion criteria to be based on what a person is rather than how they identify. A lot of atheists are agnostic and a lot of agnostics are atheistic. What matters - at least to most people, I suspect - is that they don't believe in gods. I've yet to see a good argument for maintaining separate lists of 'atheists' and 'agnostics'. Maintaining a single list, with a field to represent how each person self-identifies, is a far better solution. Ilkali (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali, that type of list will be very long and controversial. Separate lists will be far better. Some agnostics are against atheism. Will you support the creation of List of monotheists and list all Muslims, Christians & other monotheists in that list? RS190011:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Long? Didn't you just re-add about 200K of content to List of atheists? Anyway, the length problem can be solved by appropriate splitting or pruning. Controversial? I'm not proposing we label anybody as an atheist. Again: People expect inclusion criteria to be based on what position a person holds rather than what word he uses to describe himself. Your approach defies that expectation. Ilkali (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A nontheist is someone who does not believe in a personal god. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in any god. Agnostics, atheists, buddhists, deists & many other groups are nontheists - that means, they don't believe in a personal god. Don't you think it will be crazy to list them all in one list? RS190011:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"A nontheist is someone who does not believe in a personal god". As I've already said, that's not the normal definition. Usually it just denotes those who don't believe in any god. I would recommend separate lists for buddhists and deists, since they don't have the terminological problems that I've been describing and you've been ignoring. Ilkali (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, I told you, it will be controversial. Many people define non-theist as someone who doesn't believe in a personal God. 'Atheist' is usually defined as those who don't believe in any god. Thus, if super-list is to be created, that list should contain agnostics, atheists, buddhists, deists & many other non-theistic groups. RS190012:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're wrong about the definitions, but I also think it doesn't matter. I already answered your point about buddhists and deists and such. Ilkali (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ilkali, please see the meaning of 'atheist' in any dictionary. You will find this: Atheist n. A person who doesn't believe in God. The Oxford English Dictionary (2007) define "non-theist" as "not having or involving a belief in God, especially as a being who reveals himself to humanity." It is possible for a nontheist to believe in an impersonal god or a non-theistic god. So, my definitions are correct. RS190012:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to play the dictionary game with you. Read my last comment again. Focus on the part after the comma. Ilkali (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is more out of curiosity than anything. What about people who believe in a "supernatural force" that is not a god. (It does not transcend the Universe and is not omniscient) Would these people be atheist as they don't believe in God(s)?--T. Anthony (talk) 18:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the dominant definitions, yes. They would be atheists. This is part of why RS1900's objections are incoherent - he insists that 'nontheist' does not distinguish 'atheists' from 'Buddhists', without realising that Buddhists (at least, the ones he describes) are atheists. Ilkali (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Adding to what I said above: The current problems with List of atheists, List of agnostics, List of nontheists, etc are compound. They need to be approached with a solution that addresses all of them - simply cutting off one of the heads is not remotely helpful. Those who want to see the end of List of nontheists in its current state should contribute to ongoing discussions on how to improve the whole situation. Deletion of any of the lists should at least wait until said discussions are completed. Ilkali (talk) 20:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument made is not an argument for deletion, but rather, I would suggest a rename to something like List of people who do not believe in god, if we are worried about issues of self-identification. But there comes a point where if something fits the definition, we shouldn't be afraid to use it ("nontheist" is supported by references, and does not seem to be ambiguous like atheist or agnostic can be). Also, what about people who clearly did not believe in God, but did not identify as "nontheist" or "atheist" because the terms did not exist? This is perhaps a similar issue to other lists such as List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, in that you could have people who were clearly gay or bi but did not identify the term, either (a) because they didn't like the term, (b) we don't know but we don't have a reference for them identifying with the term, or (c) the term didn't exist when they lived. Should this mean such people can't be listed at all? Mdwh (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the editor believes that some people should be listed as atheists rather than nontheists, then I would suggest moving those people is more appropriate than an entire deletion. In particular, if the article is deleted, we lose all the lists of people and references and would be unable to move them across! Mdwh (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a list of prominent persons who have not believed in a god or gods, and does not burden these individuals with the connotations that have come to encrust terms such as "atheist" and "agnostic." Use of the term "nontheist" elegantly resolves the terminological disputes that had long plagued this field on Wikipedia. Nihil novi (talk) 08:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment RS1900, I think Ilkali and I agree with you really, especially about the dictionary. Thing is, we've been down that road before in the List of Atheists. The problem was that people who 'merely' do/did not believe in god(s) -- what might be called explicit weak atheism ('EWA' for convenience) -- were being rejected on the grounds that some reputable sources equally explicitly denied that EWA is atheism at all. To include EWAs, then, was a POV problem. And yet, we had no grounds to keep out those people who were undoubtedly 'merely' EWAs if they self-identified. That led to a list of muddled content. And thus, it was proposed that 'nontheist' was a good catch-all term. Ilkali, David and I all (iirc) considered the term 'atheist' to be more appropriate and better understood... but given the (illusory?) POV problem, we tried to compromise.
The crux of the problem can be seen in the discussions about Clarence Darrow -- a mere "agnostic" who, nevertheless, did not believe in God because he did not believe in Mother Goose! An atheist by rather a lot of people's standards... but he seems to have preferred the term 'agnostic'. I'd have had him in both lists, personally.
I for one hadn't considered that there'd be a problem with the term 'nontheist'... but then, I've moved in 'nontheism' circles (IIDB, Talk Rational etc) for many years. I now see that it is confusing, as people might expect it to contain self-identifying "nontheists" -- a rather small group.
I'll also note that this list (these lists!) were being discussed, with a view to putting the details in some sort of table format so as to include details of the person's identification, so that people could see for themselves whether the person is an EWA, strong atheist, rationalist, humanist, bright, atheist-agnostic or whatever. So Darrow would be included, with his Mother Goose quote, and let people decide just how 'atheist' that makes him.
I therefore propose... again... that the List of Atheists remains, and includes those expressing disbelief in gods: Strong Atheists (by definition, explicit) and EWAs. Or, that these pages remain, and the List of Atheists is subsumed in it.
Or in short, if anyone's got any bloody better ideas, they better spit 'em out PDQ. Basically, I don't care how we do it, but we need a 'list of atheists' that includes EWAs, because, with dictionary support, many people consider such persons 'atheists'.
Strong delete or rename to reflect a list of those who follow the nontheist/nondeist religions. As per Ecoleetage ("Sloppy article that inexplicably mixes atheists and agnostics with people who practice Eastern religion") etc. Oolon, I did not want to compromise on the silly way it was, not being able to include Darrow as an atheist for example - I just gave up. As per Oolon, all types of atheists should be included in the List of atheists. One thing wrong with including any type of (rationalist) atheist on the List of nontheists is that rationalists, in general, are comfortable being grouped with religionists. Article should not be deleted until reorganisation can be effected. -- David from Downunder (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heh. Yeah David, I used 'compromise' as a euphemism -- I too gave up. I'll vote for Delete all of these, provided we have no more Darrow and Chaplin nonsense in the List of Atheists. Just revise the definitional stuff at the top of that to state who's likely to be in it: all those on the right-hand half of this: -- Oolon (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: as dicdef. Beyond that, this is the English Wikipedia, and a casual scan shows that we don't have articles on other foreign language insults. (That aside, it is true, it seems; the Norwegian Wikipedia's had an article on this for a few years.) RGTraynor 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've now corrected the interwiki, so that it points to the correct Norwegian article (no:Harry (slang)) and added one more source (dictionary). This article is a straight forward translation from Norwegian Wikipedia. The content is gotten primarily from the book mentioned, but this word is so well-known for Norwegians that sources have not been required for some of the statements (that would be like requiring a source on "hello" being a greeting in English). Of course I do fully understand that things are different here on en.wiki, and I understand that it is a problem that no more sources where added when the article was translated. Still I hope that the fact that it has some sources, that it is translated from another Wiki and that it is, according to the history of the no.wiki article, written by people who I know is familiar with Wikipedia, should be sufficient. --EivindJ (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, second line says it all ("unsigned"). Delete, and delete speedy, all the links are myspace's and he's done nothing notable (i.e charted hits or working with well known artists). Mr mark taylor (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I'm unsure this is speedy-worthy; it's a year and a half between articles, and there's no reason not to presume this is a fresh effort. RGTraynor 15:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This seems to be original research- a fork attempting to show that Christian metal bands come from lots of different genres, something that can easily be said on the main article and does not need an article to itself. The whole thing appears to be an essay listing bands from various metal genres that incorporate Christian imagery. It's well referenced, but that's because it is fairly easy to find a reference for 'X is a xxxxxx metal band' and 'X uses Christian imagery'. I may be wrong about this- perhaps this does warrant an article (or perhaps a slight rewrite and renaming may be in order) but this article seems to only cover ground that is already covered at Christian metal and Christianity in mainstream metal. J Milburn (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the reason this fork exist is because the main Christian metal article is already very long. I would not call it original research when it contains over 70 citations though. I do feel that the name of the article is rather awkward so perhaps it should be renamed if it is kept. --Bardin (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yes, this article was split from Christian metal because the main article was too long. The split was done when the main article was nominated for Featured Article status but other editors kept complaining about the length, so I wrote a short summary on the main article back then. I think the Christian metal article will never become a featured article, so this article might as well be merged back to Christian metal. --Azure Shrieker (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepKeep or Merge Don't delete. That's the LAST thing you should do. This article was created because the main article was too long for Wikipedia's standards - and for the reason Azure stated above. Deleting it would be senseless. Either keep it or merge it. ¤IrønCrøw¤ (Speak to Me) 03:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: Errr ... "no citations?" I followed the several citations listed at the bottom of the article (and there at the time of the nomination), and as much as it sticks in my craw to say so about an unsigned band without releases, they check out. Several are to reliable sources which go indepth about the band, as WP:V requires. That they might not clear WP:MUSIC is trumped by the inescapable fact that they clear WP:V. The article is certainly promotional in style and a bit of a mess, but that's a content dispute inappropriate for AfD. RGTraynor 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The is an NPOV, non-promotional article about a notable band that is popular in New Delhi music circles, as well as in the underground Indian music scene. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth9118:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. While I can see this as an inflammatory redirect, I can also see it as a (somewhat) plausible typo. (You might want to withdraw this nomination and resubmit it at Redirects for Discussion, since this has never been an article.) AnturiaethwrTalk13:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I can't find anything in the way of reliable sources. The majority of the google hits seem to bit about an unrelated, Swedish band of the same name and even the notability of the Swedish band seems questionable. Not to mention that the article is a straight translation of their website so even if notability is sorted, there's a potential copyright issue that would need to be dealt with. Hemmingsen05:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Can't find any evidence in a gsearch that this Travis Parrott is notable, and notability isn't really claimed in the article. Note that there is a tennis player of the same name who probably is notable.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The tennis player is indeed notable, being on the pro tour, and bizarrely enough also went to the University of Georgia, but it's a different fellow; he attended Georgia ten years ago. RGTraynor 03:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you type in Travis Parrott Georgia Baseball on google.com? There are over five full pages of links with Parrott. Respectfully, 321Baseball (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess I am alone here. :( If you guys want to delete the article then I can't stop ya. It's a shame, there's a ton of newspaper articles out there available on Parrott but they are linked online anymore. I don't have the slightest clue how to reference them but the stories are about how Parrott is one of the top athletes to ever come out of Brevard County.
Thanks for you imput everyone. 321Baseball (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And he may well have been, but if he has not played professional ball - which it does not seem he's doing - and he didn't win top national collegiate honors in his sport - which he didn't - then he fails WP:ATHLETE. RGTraynor 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that every college athlete who hasn't won a national championship or All-American status should not have a wikipedia page? I'm disappointed that Parrott doesn't fall into that realm. I guess it is what it is. So by using google.com, that's how you check if someone is notable or not?
Respectfully, 321Baseball (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, that's what it means, yes. If you'd like to debate the criteria of WP:ATHLETE, I recommend the talk page there, but it's been very resistant to change, and such momentum as has existed has been to tighten the standards, not loosen them. RGTraynor 14:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I notice this article has (barely) survived several previous votes, and the only major argument for keeping is the media coverage - but that was only speculation and crystalballing by newspapers, a kind of "Wouldn't it be nice if we were the first to report on the phenomenon of the yellow pages being replaced by a wiki?", an event which of course never actually happened. Predicting the demise of virtually everything (including themselves) is a popular hobby for newspapers, and each iteration can hardly justify another article. akaDruid (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the article is kept, it should be revised to indicate that Yellowikis is a former web site and now apparently defunct. Apparently it has been offline now for a year and a half. --Metropolitan90(talk)13:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You know, this is the fifth attempt at killing the article. I think we may learn something from the first, second, third and fourth attempts. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the most recent previous AFD was a bad-faith sockpuppet nomination, I don't see any reason to dispute the keep votes that were cast back then. And it has BBC News and Guardian sources. That establishes the notability. 23skidoo (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was very brief notability - in a historical context I would say it has lost its meaning - As per WP:NOT#NEWS: News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. How about merging the most interesting bits to Yellow Pages? akaDruid (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Species are generally considered inherently notable and therefore are not generally required to assert notability. Nonetheless, the species both appears to have existed and is also referenced, with a number of additional sources available from only a cursory search. Debate (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Biologycruft? This is a known genus of animal that once existed. The fact that the genus has been given scholarly attention, both in the book cited in the article, and the few hits that are available online, are more than sufficient showing of notability. The guidelines must be interpreted with common sense, clearly the topic is one that traditionally would be covered in an encyclopedia. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It's a gushy rave about a non-notable radio person. There are thousands of similarly non notable radio people, and we don't give them a mention. Rightly so too. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for apparent lack of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 13:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a very notable radio personality in Michigan. I think the article needs to be expanded and more references which I have done some of but as far as notability I think it should stay --Vertigo315 (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as 50+ year career, including 47 years doing mornings at one station, is notable and I've added several independent reliable sources to this article for verifiability. It could use a bit more rewriting and certainly could be expanded as the available sources are impressively numerous and in-depth. - Dravecky (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. His accomplishments described in the article all center around his longevity in the business, which just isn't that notable. References are from local sources failing to make the case for wide recognition in the industry.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Shawn Tan. Please do not modify it. The result was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Redirect per Esradekan - if Dirk were a character in a bunch of movies or a major TV series, then maybe. But as it is, the Boogie Nights article has all we really need to know about him. If it can be sourced and worked into the article somehow (outside of a trivia section, that is), the Diablo II reference is about the only thing worth saving here. Duncan1800 (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep copious ghits, character appeared in two movies, easy to find (passing) references in news (e.g. [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]), was widespread in the media at the time (e.g. used in the title of a review though it isn't in the title of the movie, [34], name copied by a musician [35], inspired a drink [36]). JJL (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that - and all those namesake things, with proven notability, can have their own articles that link back to their original influence, which was undoubtedly the film Boogie Nights. My previous vote stands - Dirk Diggler, despite his amusing name and fictionally-legendary genitalia, is not exactly a broad cultural phenomenon. True, many people know about him - because of the one widely-released and critically acclaimed movie he was featured in. (And no, I don't think people are referring to The Dirk Diggler Story when they reference the character. Good try, though.) Duncan1800 (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. As with Coccyx Bloccyx, I am not opposed to a sourced article and I believe one could easily be written. But this isn't it. --Dhartung | Talk22:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as even a resturant near Kent State University has a sandwitch called the Dirk Diggler on its menu with something like "can you handle all 9 inches" or something next to it. Yes, I am serious. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You want to create an article on this notable restaurant and their notable sandwich so I can PROD it before you slap a Rescue tag on it? KleenupKrew (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, the restaurant I mention is actually somewhat notable (see [38]). Anyway, for the sandwich I mentioned see here on the right side of the screen under SUMO CLASS SANDWICH. Notice the bit about "2 hands needed for this 12 incher"... Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho!01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The band claims notability as one of the first bands to license their music under Creative Commons, which I don't think is sufficient. They have one interview in Red Hat magazine (online), which I also don't think is sufficient. NawlinWiki (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. the primary assertion here is based on ..notable for being one of the first American rock bands to be licensed under Creative Commons.. I don't see that meets any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Pedro : Chat 12:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for sources in Google News archives here, and also checked in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but found nothing. Delete if no third-party sources (beyond Red Hat magazine) are forthcoming by the end of the deletion discussion. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs)00:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Pure crystal. I went through and removed all the contact information for myspace and fan clubs as well. Kww (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page goes outside of the existing categorization system for music genres on wikipedia. All subgenres should be given their own article according to the standards defined in the Wiki Music Project, and placed under the category of the parent genre, including an infobox. A lot of the information here is good and relevant, but it should be assimilated into the other articles properly. There is also a consensus problem and a verification problem for nearly the entire article. It is important that when the new genre pages are created, original research is not used.
The following pages may be helpful for those interested in integrating the work here properly.
This will help in solving some of the conflict here regarding the genres. Before an argument is made for a genre to be noted, or to remove particular artists from an existing genre to a named genre that has no entry, the proposed genre should have a page created using the template, guidelines, and references should be provided. Freqsh0 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that it is basically a parallel micro-effort to Wiki Project Music, which is meant to do exactly what this page does, but for ALL music genres. The content here, if cited and not original research, would most appropriately be moved over to our existing genre hierarchy on wikipedia. It makes no sense to me to go outside of this and create a new, independent, mini-hierarchy. Does that make sense? Freqsh0 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article provides some good info, but the consensus issues need to be addressed. As it stands, it seems like a forum for debating and pigeonholing bands, as well as a place for bands to advertise themselves under their chosen genre. The article is quite valid, but needs a lot of cleanup and regulation. Sovex (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above. Aside from the noted shortcomings regarding article quality, my main goal here is to conform it to WikiProject Music, because we already have a system in place to accomplish what this page does. Ideally, these will be simply marked as child genres and fusion genres (facilities for this already exist) in our master hierarchy. I am not trying to have the article tossed, or fight your keep votes, I just want to be sure that your keep votes are taking that into consideration :) Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for me to use a merge tag? Freqsh0 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will immediately see how music genre trees currently work, and hopefully why this material should (in my opinion) be assimilated into the existing system.
In a vacuum, this article is not delete-worthy I agree, but there is important context here, and if one votes without being familiar with the WikiProject Music, they are likely to miss this very important point. The maintenance of this article feels to me like a case of "the right hand doesn;t know what the left hand is doing", so to speak. Freqsh0 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am really confused by the nominator's rationale here. What does a WikiProject have to do with the merits of any individual article or list? WikiProjects are not policies or guidelines. Why should anything be restricted to a WikiProject page if a legitimate article can be created about it? What's the difference between this list and all the other similar lists? The only problem I see with this is that it needs more references for verifiability; that's cause for improvement and not deletion. Also the name is unnecessarily long. There's really no need for the "and related fusion genres" bit. --Bardin (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Query. Why goth and industrial (and, according to the lead, synthpop) specifically? Are the genres so closely related (in style, history, whatever) as to require one article between them? AnturiaethwrTalk13:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are very related in some aspects, but many members of the "goth" crowd and the "industrial" crowd will take offense to being mistaken for the other :) The "scene" for these genres is very small by most standards, and most major cities in North America will have a club night or 2 weekly or monthly dedicated to both. Musically speaking, it's fairly easy for someone familiar with them to distinguish the two, but the truth is that they are virtually always grouped together on playlists, music festivals (wave gotik treffen, mera luna), music stores, magazines (side-line magazine) and record labels (metropolis records). Distinguishing the two can be a highly contested issue, but I believe everyone would agree that, for better or worse, the two always end up "together". Freqsh0 (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And just a followup, I am reasonably familiar with the scene on a larger scale (as in, not specifically california, more so the bands that were successful enough to "make it out of" california), and I've heard of maybe 10% of these bands. You'll notice many listed don't even have a website in the website column, and the band name is not wikilinked, because they're not notable enough for an article. If this article is kept, I believe such entries, at the very least, should be pruned. Freqsh0 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems that only a handful of the bands have articles, and the rest seem to be advertising their home page. If this page can undergo a serious cleanup, I might reconsider.
After reading that, specifically the section on considering a category, it would make a lot more sense to me to create a "Goth and Industrial bands from California" category, and throw the notable ones with articles in there. Seems to be more consistent with how wikipedia is organized in general. Freqsh0 (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge into another Macedonian article or creation of an article "Macedonian symbols" with pictures and text. The lion flags are not displayed in wikipedia although they are very often used by Macedonians. Cukiger (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Disputed prod. Doesn't have strong notability claims, serial nn reality TV contestant, nn model, nn singer. Happy to be persuaded otherwise. Dweller (talk) 09:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Articles have been kept for less notoriety than that, but the article could really use some sources...any sources, actually. Duncan1800 (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I'll strike that first part. Sourcing is the biggest thing here - pretty much anyone who competes in a reality show gets some sort of press these days, much of which is probably available online. If that can be added to the article, I'm all for it. She did appear regularly in two nationally-televised programs on top-tier networks; that's not nothing by most standards. Duncan1800 (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,An actress who has appeared in various TV shows, a film and independent films too. She's appeared in two reality TV shows, both of which she got far in. She is a signed solo singer now too, this should not be deleted at all! There's so much worse articles in terms of people not being well known but this person has appeared in big productions and a big amount of things to warrant an article. It just needs some more sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.143.21 (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing as an extra does not bring notability, nor does losing in reality TV shows, unless it brings unusual notoriety etc, like Nasty Nick. Signed solo singer is also not notable until a notable release is made, per WP:CRYSTAL. And you end with a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, which merely argues that other articles should be deleted too. Feel free to list them at AfD. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to jump in here and offer a delete argument. I'd say that the subject Melissa Smith is a (admittedly, narrow) failure of Wikipedia:Notability: notability hasn't been established with reliable sources independent of the subject, to any robust degree. Indeed, articles have been kept for less in the past; overall, however: I'd agree with the nomination statement–a non-notable subject, going on provided sources, at least. Anthøny00:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I spent some time editing her page and I have looked into her background as both a singer/actress, she has not just appeared as an extra in productions infact she has appeared as a featured guest star and in lead roles. She has released a music video for her first single and appeared in two big reality TV shows. It's quite evident that shes well known enough to have this wikipedia article.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The consensus is to keep, though the argument under WP:MUSIC is not overwhelming. Some effort has been put into the article, so I hope additional referencing is added to avoid returning to AFD.--Kubigula(talk)23:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meet WP:MUSIC#C9 for their winning of The Rock FM Jim Beam Rock Search for the Vodafone Homegrown festival in Wellington NZ. It was a New Zealand wide competition. (and the buggers beat my band too damn them). [39],[40]. I'll add these references in as soon as the final of Survivor has finished. Esradekan Gibb "Talk"09:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Vanguard information should be deleted unless a source can be found, but they have released an album with a major NZ label (Jayrem). Amplifier is the biggest NZ music website and I would consider it a reliable source - it doesn't use any user-contributed material. There should be overage in the NZ music print media too, but that is much harder to track down. dramatic (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Vanguard Records is currently the name for the band's own label apparently which is currently sorting through a distribution deal as I have been informed. Worth leaving in I say. Their independent EP was meant to be Vanguard initial release but it was kept to a limited edition primarily to Itunes worldwide which has sold out. "The People Will Prevail" is thier 2nd full length that they are releasing this year in part via Vanguard and in conjunction with another label so the reference is worth staying. The amplifier reference is watertight and I know of writings in various news papers through out the country which should be sourced. I remember seeing the first album reviewed on Good Morning TV by a Dominion Post music writer also.I know one of the members and he has told me 2 new videos are released after May and they are lining up further media articles also at the moment so further information will become available. Also worth noting perhaps is their involvement with noted ex pat Christopher Read who resides in Australia as a publisher etc and has worked with The Vines, Ed Kupper etc and was apparently a big fan of the first album and was him who tried to set up the Joe Henry thing as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.13.112 (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please supply a reference for it being their own label. Since it is clearly not the American label, I shall unlink it from that article. dramatic (talk) 11:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:REF for instructions for how to add references. You could also click on the edit tab at the top of the Payola (band) article to see examples of how the other references in the articles were added. Papa November (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The discography differs from the website so need to be updated, more source material is available as i have seen it so will look thru —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.13.112 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to probably fail notability, and also not be sourced - seems autobiographical. P.S. afraid I'm a little unsure of the system so am probably doing this wrong! -Hunting dog (talk) 07:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a direct rebuttal, more a reflection, but if asserting notability simply involves a claim to have sold something to socialites and corporations (specifically, in this instance, a company director and a law firm) then it's a very low hurdle indeed to overcome, and somewhat contrary to the kid gloves approach generally implied per WP:BLP. Debate (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree; I'm thinking more about the last sentence, full of unsourced claims about running for city council, performing at the Met, and so on. AnturiaethwrTalk14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LOL. Thankfully for my own privacy, neither running for City Council (per WP:POLITICIAN), nor writing a book (per WP:CREATIVE) nor performing at the MET (per WP:ENTERTAINER) are sufficient of themselves to establish notability. Unfortunately, while what constitutes notability is moderately well defined, what constitutes asserting notability seems to be largely a judgment call... Debate (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no sources whatsoever, and all other links seem to be linking to this article on Wikipedia. Not a single shred of evidence.--EclipseSSD (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, since none of the articles contained a substantive claim to notability and all were created to advertise the subject. All have been previously speedied. All are the work of single-purpose accounts.
This article, although apparently well referenced, concerns me. The idea of a notable bass player, at 16, strikes me as improbable, though of course not impossible. I have my doubts over the provenance of the sources; they appear very specific but vague at the same time, e.g. "Hudson, 2006 p. 142." What is this? "Audio Mag" also appears dubious.
I am also nominating the following related pages about groups that Chris Frangou has supposedly performed with and are also written by User:Chris funk bass. I have the same concerns with these articles as above:
Delete - I should have realised something was amiss when I removed the "superband" descriptor for the John Smith Quintet. --WebHamster12:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G3; No proof subject exists, and article created by SPA in account's only three edits. No objection to a properly sourced article on such a game, if and when. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence20:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems to be a hoax, can't find any references to substantiate that the thing even exists, let alone whether it's notable. I used this search string, if you can think of one that would find something on this and prove me wrong, I'm all ears. Closedmouth (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searched for combinations of "Dancing with the stars"/sequel/game/breakout and found nothing other than the wiki page and a question about it. Conclude that it's a hoax, or at least not verifiable. TrulyBlue (talk) 08:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax per nom and alleged content (Not one reggaeton song has ever been on DWTS in TV show or video game form). Nate•(chatter)11:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I question the accuracy of this article mainly for its inclusion of the decidedly unorthodox locale of "Compton" as an available stage, along with "breakdancing" and "macarena" (ha!) as potential styles. Hoax? Methinks yes. Duncan1800 (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm putting this here because the Speedy Delete was contested by the user, they added some more info to the article and then removed the speedy delete template. But still, no assertion of notability. No relevant hits on Google, except their MySpace page. No confirmed acts, only rumours of Jet headlining it Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 06:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a good enough excuse to delete it. The people behind Fedstock say its still in the early stages of organisation and that there will be one famous international act headlining but they are keeping it quiet for now for some reason. I would definetly reconsider this deletion.--116.240.169.19 (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When it happens and there's a famous international act headlining and gets press coverage, it can be recreated. Kate (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, there isn't even confirmation that a notable act is performing. Wikipedia is not for "rumours" or speculation. When it gets beyond the speculation/early planning stage, the subject might be notable Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 06:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if this can be verified, one source does not assert notability. That means it exists. Notability depends on multiple, non-trivial sources about the topic. --Kinut/c07:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this is insane. no wonder wikipedia has a terrible reputation. crap that is unsoursed and false can be posted but real infomation such as this is denied existance. --116.240.169.19 (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure to whom this is directed, but as indicated above, I personally do not. Your task: show the community why it is notable by reading the appropriate policies and guidelines (also see above) and editing the article accordingly, and they will likely agree with you. If you can do that, I would be willing to change my recommendation. --Kinut/c07:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, we are simply expected to take your word that the magazine articles actually mention the music festival. While we assume good faith, it is hard to accept that at face value, considering that the sources seemed to be added as an afterthought only after you were questioned about them. Some concrete "proof" (to use your term) needs to be provided to that effect. Likewise, a mere mention is, as indicated, simply not enough: there has to be meaningful coverage about the festival itself, not just a passing mention here and there. As I said, please take the time to review the policies and guidelines linked above, and let us know if you have any questions after doing so. --Kinut/c07:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it becomes notable after it's held it can be recreated, but currently there's nothing to indicate notability. Kate (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The discussion here seems relevant. The addition of one of the titles discussed at that AfD to this article indicates that this might be part of some sort of WP:COATRACK. --Kinut/c18:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Procedural nomination. My main concern with this article is that the sources that exist are sketchy and are basically press releases parroting a first party announcement. No instance of in-depth previews. There is also some disagreement in the article as to whether the game is in testing or has been canceled. No sources in either case. It seems like pure WP:CRYSTAL at this stage to say whether the game is, will, or won't be coming out since we don't have any significant coverage. However, it is a game in a notable series and if good information exists then it is probably notable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOnline and Kingdoms appear to be two distinct projects. Online is an MMORPG being developed in China, while Kingdoms is a web-based version of HOMM V that is presumably based in the UK (where the website is). Both articles are in bad shape but they should not be regarded as the same topic. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 'Online' was an earlier title, it has since been renamed 'Kingdoms'. Although I can understand the confusion, they are the same game. See, for example: [41]Debate (talk) 03:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to reverse myself again, but here's a more reliable source: Gamasutra "originally reported that Heroes of Might and Magic Kingdoms was related to Heroes Of Might And Magic Online, an MMO developed in China for that market only, and has since been updated and corrected. Gamasutra regrets the error."[42]. In fact it seems like a lot of the confusion regarding these titles might have originated from the original Gamasutra article, as it is referenced in other places like Wired[43] (note that the Ubisoft producer leaves a reader comment to state that the games are not related). Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHam Pastrami is clearly correct. Thank you for your excellent research. In the process, in my view, we've come pretty close to establishing a reasonable level of coverage that would sufficiently establish notability. I'll have a go at trying to improve the article, but probably won't get a chance before this afd concludes. Debate (talk) 07:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of the news that Online will be released only in China, good sources may well exist in Chinese but it will likely be difficult to ever find English-language sources. I'm unsure of how to proceed with articles like this. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the Wired, gamasutra and mmosite news stories are essentially press releases and are not enough to satisfy WP:N. At least stubify by removing the "features" and gallery, which goes a bit beyond fair-use. Marasmusine (talk) 06:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this topic is notable and verifiable, even if the article hasn't done a very good job fo asserting notability. It's already on its way to meeting the notability requirement, and I don't think it will be long before someone finds the references to fix it. I'm erring on the side of caution. Randomran (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is unclear from the source exactly when this game is going to be released. also lack of coverage to verify notability, and the features part read like an advertisement. Article also suffers from overuse of non-free images. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was CSD G10, presumed to be an attack page due to the context (names of individuals used) in this and other similar articles created by the author. --Kinut/c06:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Google search for "last straw family restaurant" (in quotes) along with "rockford" turned up only the article in question and a line in WP's List of fast food restaurants under "Fast-food chains no longer in business". If someone can provide sources attesting to the restaurant's claimed popularity, so much the better - but until then, delete. Duncan1800 (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the author has provided an interesting array of sources for the information, although they don't really help to establish notability. Perhaps this person could look towards things like local newspaper articles? If there were a few of those cited, I'd probably be willing to vote keep. Everyking (talk) 07:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable entertainment hack who was a jack of all trades without becoming notable in any of them. Fails WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:BK, WP:COI, WP:Single-purpose account, and probably a few more guidelines we could throw at it. Run-of-the-mill circus performers and literary agents are inherently non-notable, and she was both of these things. Qworty (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Every literary agent who dies in New York gets written up in the Times. It's nothing more than a professional courtesy, since New York is the center of the publishing industry, so the obit really doesn't mean anything--except, of course, for the fact that it highlights the reality that this woman had to die before the Times deigned to publish an article about her. Qworty (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least five separate reviews, which would go toward satisfying the first criteria of WP:BK. (And it's likely that there are many other reviews in publications that aren't electronically archived back to the 1960s.) Zagalejo^^^04:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only do we have the NY Times obit, but we also have an apparently non-trivial mention in the O'Boyle book. In my opinion, that's enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Scog (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepmore RS available too. Run-of-the-mill are indeed notable if they're received RS coverage of their work. Since when does a book need to be 'culturally significant' or 'controversial' to pass notability? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Connie Clausen was more than a "run of the mill circus performer and literary agent". Run of the mill circus performers don't publish memoirs that are considered authorative on the 20th Century circus experience and are used as a teaching reference by the Ringling Musuem and cited in works such as the biography of the Russian choreographer Balanchine. And she was a top New York literary agent responsible for many bestsellers of the 1970's, 80's and 90's. Sangroncito (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I did the initial editing-there was lots of information about Connie Clausen that made her notable.Thank you-RFD (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some refs and stuff. In researching her, it was clear that she has an interesting and varied history, and had received extensive coverage in reliable sources. As mentioned by TravellingCari and Zagalejo, there were lots of reviews of her book published back in the early 60's, as well as quite a few references before that to her television and entertainment career. The O'Boyle book Scog mentions has a full entry on her as well. Actually, for me the most interesting reference was in Tait's book, as she was looking at how Clausen described her treatment in the circus in her memoirs. Overall, she seems like a good fit for Wikipedia. :) - Bilby (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep The version even at the time of nomination had a New York Times full obituary as the reference. This is considered unquestioned evidence of notability (not all papers, of course, but the NYT and the London Times due to their reputation for selectivity--reckless assertion about covering every literary agent.) DGG (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
We're having some freaky weather here in the Inland Empire. Snow, slush, heavy rain, you name it. Still, it won't last. Neither will this. I claimed delete once before and I say it again. Thanks for the snowball offer, Duncan...but I have my own. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Author had to provide in-line citations explaining what the sources tell specifically about the prevention of nuclear war rather than about world government or anything else.Biophys (talk) 04:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A three-story student dorm building with two kitchens. Encyclopedic notability not established. Notability tags have been removed several times, but the article still does not mention sources independent from the university. I commend the author for digging out an amusing historical anecdote involving the building, but raining bras and panties from a house does not necessarily make it notable. And besides, it seems that the source has been summarized inaccurately, as it does not say that the broom incident took place at precisely this dorm, and the television crew (just one is mentioned) is not said to have filmed there.
Delete. Agree with the nominator. There are several references in the article, but certainly not enough to demonstrate either historical or architectural significance of the building, which, as I understand it, was built in 1969. Does not pass WP:N, in my opinion. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this building--similar to thousands that can be seen on any number of college campuses. Qworty (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, it's a building with some history at an important school and we ought to have at least a bit of info about it somewhere. Everyking (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even worth a redirect, as explained at the AfD for its companion hall. Except for those of architectural distinction ,it would take something very unusual indeed for a residence hall at a university to be notable, & nothing but the routine is asserted here. DGG (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Georgia Tech is a great school, I love its math program... but dorms don't merit their own articles -- and are rarely notable enough to be mentioned in main articles (except on maps). CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Trivial list that really doesn't amount to anything. Most of it is original research. Theres a lot of TV shows, movies, and magazines that do parodies of people, they doesen't need to be encyclopedia articles about it . its an unimportant list, non-encyclopedic and fancruft. Coasttocoast (talk) 03:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eye parodies are well known and frequently referenced in British media - added a few more references to support this. Multiple reliable sources can easily be found to support most of the other entries in the list. Gr1st (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of this kind may not turn up in an Encyclopedia, but many of the terms included here do surface in dictionaries of 'phrase and fable'; many WP articles are effectively an online version of these works. Philip Cross (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was that this should not be a standalone article; based on the discussion a redirect to the high school is in order. Any sourced content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established. It was just written by a student at that school. Seems like they had success, but really theres no other high school teams that have their own separate articles, not even those nationally known high school football teams. Theres no reason why this high school team should. -- Coasttocoast (talk)
Delete. I did like the part about breaking "the Decibel Noise level at 120, with a screaming 15,000+ fans". However, of course, all of the info here is unverified and much of it is probably unverifiable. Even if one takes all of the claims in the article for granted, that would not amount to notability. No sources cited in the article and, apart from a few mentions in local press, I did not find much in GoogleNews either. Fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, anything sourced and encyclopedic could be included to the school's article. This is just content that would/should/could be on the school's website, and WP:NOT a free webhost. --Kinut/c06:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons why to keep this year this basketball team set off history in northern new mexico and you may think its not so important but to may it is keep others in mind as well not just you these boys went a far way and there is plenty of sources that need to be added it just takes time. [45][46][47]...ThomasSalazarChat?! 7:33 MT, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The team still lacks notability. The first link is a local news source, for any high school team you can find stories in the local newspaper. The second two links are just from video hosting websites. "set off history in northern new mexico" is not enough. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- this inspirational basketball team from a though town deserves to have a basketball page ..i think people should think about others opinions as said a couple of comments on top of this one. Is just a basketall page let it be.. if you were from this area you would be proud too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.50.208 (talk • contribs)
I compared the two contribution histories and scope of the comments and conjectured a possibility. If you are indeed not the same person, then there is no need to get defensive and violate WP:CIVIL. --Kinut/c16:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i dont see why it is marked for deletion. It would be nice to keep the article because that way you would not crowd the school article too much the players roster and the schedule would be a burden to the Espanola Valley High School athletics section. Well i think it should be kept there is no reason for an arguement over a page like this..In a sense i think those players are proud and whoever created this must be very proud of there school seems great to me :) 207.155.113.123 (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason this discussion exists is because the team itself does not meet WP:ORG, as it is a subset of the school, which is considered notable. Being "proud" of ones accomplishments is not the criterion by which Wikipedia articles are created/kept. --Kinut/c18:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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.
Lack of information, lack of reference, no notability of song, lack of content. Performer hasn't even acknowledged song yet. Dude527 (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone did add a reference to it to show its from Inside the Fire UK. Harlot666 7:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
So it seems as though we've reached a conclusion then? We have a consensus, the other user agreed it should be deleted, look on my talk page. It seems unanimous. Dude527 (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. Not a single, article says little more than "This is a song by Disturbed". Another example of frivolous song article creation. Rehevkor (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Parent article The Van Buren Regulars speedied under A7. This article was nominated for A7 as well, but declined on technical grounds (A7 does not cover albums). However, album appears to fail notability nonetheless. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This guy does appear to exist, but aside from the basic facts of existing I can find nothing to suggest he's notable in any way, despite the hyperbolic claims in the article. An unsourced article whose sole editors (aside from assorted cleaner-uppers) appear to be a pair of tag-teaming SPAs. Even if he does somehow pass WP:N, the article is so hopelessly spammy that once cleaned up, it would read "Jason Scott Alexander is Canadian". Needless to say, the "top ten band in Ireland and the UK" has mysteriously slipped below the radar of every site save for Myspace and YouTube, as well, as has the record label. — iridescent02:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator is a SPA, therefore almost certainly COI. I can find a number of articles by him but nothing about him, therefore NN. Even if further information could be found to establish notability I agree with nom that once POV issues are resolved there'd be virtually nothing remaining to justify an article. Debate (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Same old story: plenty of mentions, no sources. FYI, the more famous Jason Alexander's middle name is Scott; that's only in his birth name, though, so it's probably not worth a redirect. AnturiaethwrTalk13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Real places such as Canadian provincial regions are inherently notable, and having the wrong title is not a valid rationale for deletion. Nominator is welcome to use WP:RM to hold a straw poll on the proper title. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk05:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep -see www.capitale-nationale.gouv.qc.ca which is the external link listed at the bottom of the article. An official government website is sufficient proof to me that the district exists. It is the official title of the district according to the provincial government so it is what the article should be called. By your argument we shouldn't have an article called National Assembly of Quebec since that is arguably POV as well. French placenames and titles are acceptable if there is no accepted English language equivalent. See, for example Parti Québécois, Union Nationale, Trois-Rivières, Action Démocratique, Val-d'Or etc. I hope you're not going to suggest we rename those articles Quebec Party, National Union, Three Rivers, Democratic Action and Gold Valley:). Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For Canada specific naming conventions, see WP:CSG#French names. As per these guidelines and agreed by everyone here, it's a clear case of keep, without a reason for deletion or moving.--Boffob (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be POV, having been renamed that by the PQ, but it is the official name of the region and appears to be the generally used name, even in English. DoubleBlue (Talk)02:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, it's an administrative region of Quebec, they all have their own articles. And, as far as I know, the name dates back to the Union Nationale days, long before the Parti Québécois and separation issues. The title of the article follows the naming conventions as well.--Boffob (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, After verification, as an administrative region, the name dates back to 1999. Either way, it's the name for it, and that's no reason to delete.--Boffob (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Can't imagine how this fulfills the idea of what a list should be, even if it were well referenced: which it isn't at all. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. No reliable sources to demonstrate notability listed in the article. After a bit of google searching I could not find anything else passing WP:RS either. Nsk92 (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Approximately 300 ghits from fansites and some official Marvel sites. Nothing coming close to significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. OT, the pics in the external link are great. Looks like a dinosaur that's had its limbs replaced with spaghetti. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by / madness, starving hysterical naked, / dragging themselves through the non-notable articles of the AfD discussions / looking for an angry fix... (Apologies to Ginsberg) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response I have to question the notion of "so many hits." And as for the existing coverage, if you take a closer look you will see that this was a one-hit novelty story from 2003 -- there's been no significant coverage since. And the discussion boards on the Darwinian Poetry web site have no talk beyond 2004. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it not passing brave to be a king On yon small screen of ABC News? Is it not passing brave to be a king And ride in triumph in the New York Times?- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fitness of the topic's inclusion to Wikipedia is judged through our notability criteria. General notability criteria state that the topic should have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. One does not need to go through AfD or DR or ArbCom to !vote Keep if satisfactory sources are already in the article. (Not really Darwinian poetry, but I hope this is as close you can get to NPOV poetry.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A7 doesn't apply to this, per WP:CSD#A7: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." (Italics added for emphasis) AecisBrievenbus10:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Disagree with the nominator's reason, but by the last sentence there's nothing present to prove notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Take a closer look at those articles in your search -- the bulk of them are not connected to this one-time event. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well covered by media; someone just needs to do some good google searching for references; may need to consult old news magazines.--BedfordPray01:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Blood sweat and ears is one in a loooooong line of professional wrestling organisations. But like most, they do not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia. AecisBrievenbus00:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I see some coverage of their events, it appears this one is just on the edge of notability. That said, they're mostly behind pay gates and I don 't know the slightest thing about wrestling so can't help much with this one. I'll see if I can tag the right group that can. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee13:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My gut reaction was to delete, but the sources provided in the above post changed my mind. This organization has received regular coverage from SLAM! Sports, which is the best reliable source for Canadian wrestling. The roster also contains many notable names (Abyss, Kanyon, Dreamer, Rhino, Daniels, and Cage), and the results show that several more notable wrestlers also appear sporadically. The article needs to be expanded to include these assertations of notability, though. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep Appears to be notable based on the statement above and the fact that some notable wrestlers have been associated with it. When it comes to venues like this one must consider the notability of the people involved with it. Wrestling organizations would not be notable if it were not for their notable talent, correct? Still needs a lot of work. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note that this organization previously flunked an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood Sweat and Ears. This version of the article is significantly weaker, in fact, than the version that was previously deleted: it's much shorter and contains no references or external links, while the previously deleted version did. I suspect, overall, that the organization is sufficiently notable for a proper article, and if anybody's willing to tackle getting it up to snuff I'll gladly restore a copy of the much better original article for them to work with. But as currently written, the article isn't a keep candidate in the least. Keep if somebody's willing to work on it, but delete if it's going to stay in its current state. Bearcat (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Dynomutt, Dog Wonder, as consensus seems to overwhelmingly indicate that this is the most common and widely known use of the article name. A disambiguation page is already in place, should articles covering any other meanings meet the standards of notability and verifiability. Pastordavid (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dynomutt, Dog Wonder, which is what this article was before repeatedly being changed to what it is now. If restoring the redirect is not appropriate, then I recommend a strong delete. The (potentially) reliable source given above comes nowhere close to mentioning the more colorful definition given by User:Ronjohn. --Kinut/c02:57, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. Ask anyone in the military what this word means and they will tell you!! It's also the paratroopers so we can add that toRon John (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not going to question the notability, as that has been established above, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Right now, this article is no more than an uncited dicdef with some rather poor examples. Unless more can be found on this term, it should be deleted as a dicdef. Calvin 1998(t-c)06:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Kinu above. And if you want an article about the paratroopers (which would not be a bad thing), feel free to create one at Blue Falcons - it's still available. Duncan1800 (talk) 11:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are 2 questions here: one is about the military slang, which seems to be headed for non-notability so far. The second is about the best use for the page, and that seems to be headed towards a redirect to Dynomutt. User:Ronjohn is the main proponent for the military slang, and has also brought this up at WP:EAR; he can try to create a decent article at Blue Falcon (military slang) for example. I'll be happy to create the dab page as and when it becomes necessary. The disambiguation page is now ready. I'm going to revert the article to its redirect form. Any editor who wants to take a shot at Blue Falcon (military slang) can retrieve any content from the page history - feel free to leave a message on my talk page or at WP:EAR if I can help. --AndrewHowse (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No sources indicating notability appear on the page, which fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY since it is mostly a list of venues and dates. Darth NormaN (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Is an Xbox Marketplace webcast notable? I don't think so but not being an Xbox user I don't know. The Google test doesn't seem to throw up anything except the occasional blog — even Microsoft themselves don't appear to mention it anywhere — and for web content, I would expect the Google test to be fairly reliable. I don't want to prod this, both because I'm not familiar with the market and because it's been up for a fair while with no complaints. — iridescent00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete non prejudicial, recreation if/when notability can be established. I note the inclusion of a billboard source, while the source itself is RS the article isnt significant coverage. Redirect page to DJ Khaled. Gnangarra13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that not a reliable link? All artists through major record labels--their myspaces are usually owned by either the label or the actual person. Also, on the song "Out Here Grindin'" on the page, it states under it that it is on the album "We Global". I have seen other albums stay up by less sources than that. This one should be able to live as well.Y5nthon5a (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe if you read WP:RS, especially the second paragraph, you'll find the answer to your question. His myspace fails third-party, and a blog is not considered reliable in Wikipedias' eyes. Esradekan Gibb "Talk"01:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding a source now that is reliable, at the end they say that Ace Hood will be on DJ Khaled's new album. This is what the ref that I am about to add says: In addition, he is featured on the first single to DJ Khaled's next album, "We Global Now," titled "Out Here Grinding," alongside Lil Boosie, Lil Wayne, Akon, Rick Ross, Plies and Trick Daddy.Y5nthon5a (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now there is one source indicating that the album will exist. Still appears to be crystal balling, though. The amount of substantiated content is very low at the moment. No prejudice to recreation once something more is out there. --Kinut/c02:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well NOW, if you look at the single page, the single off the album is on billboards, so it's basically a confirmed thing. Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you delete the article if its been confirmed by khaled himself and is mentioned in a billboard article? unless billboard has become a source of bullshit or somethin i dont see y this article should be deleted then remade in a months time when more news comes out on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.62.204 (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep, 10 Google news hits, two from Skeptic. Cited by 16 other creationist books, which was enough to raise an eyebrow. This book is much more significant in its field than the run-of-the-mill YEC stuff. Notable on both sides of the controversy, but needs that to be fleshed out in the article itself. JJB 19:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep Somewhat reluctantly, since I vigorously disagree with the book's premise. But I have to agree that it is notable in its field. This article needs a lot of fleshing out, keeping WP:NPOV firmly in mind. Comment - it has already survived one AfD discussion here. Plvekamp (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ken Ham. He's notable (as the foregoing ghits attest) but not everything he writes is ipso facto notable. Although two years ago's afd closed as keep, no valid reason was given in that discussion. --brewcrewer(yada, yada)22:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For a book published in 1987, and an article in existence since May 2006, this article has zero establishment of notability in third party sources. MickMacNee (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reasons above. Notable book both in Christian circles as well as secular (criticized in areas such as the Skeptic Magazine articles). It may have been published in 1987 but it is still in print, popular and widely available. Flesh out the article and make sure it stays NPOV, but keep it. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion To all the users asserting keep because of notability, instead of just stating it for an article that has existed since May 2006, you have to show it. Add references and third party sources. Otherwise, this article cannot be kept on the basis of it's current unsourced state, it is little more than an unreferenced stub and free web hosting for the author. It is not acceptable just to state 'yeah I know this book it's famous'. MickMacNee (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be fairly notable and well known, judging from Google hits. I've added a couple of review links (one pro, one con) to the article as evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Editors using a google hit count as a justification for keep appear to be missing the point. A google hit count says nothing about an article, but only (somewhat) about suitability for inclusion of the topic. While the topic of the article may be an appropriate subject for a WP article, the article still needs to assert that notability itself. But the article on the book does not do that. Instead, it is an advert, with no *assertion* of the subject's importance, and with no sources. The article should then either be deleted, or be turned into a suitably encyclopedic article (to include incorporating references to it as sources). Wikipedia is also not a linkfarm, and as long as the article's author(s) can't be bothered to summarize what has been written about that book, the article is just spam and deserves to be deleted/merged with Ken Ham. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Fullstop I assume your meant me when you say "editors" above. I have now added a Synopsis and criticism section to the article, with appropriate references, which I believe makes it more encyclopedic and speaks to the notability of the book. I believe it is better to improve the quality of our articles than to take cheap shots from the sidelines. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gandalf! For "editors" plural, at least three editors have forgotten the principle that notability is established on what can be sourced, not on what has been sourced. People who want to argue about what has been sourced simply add tags, instead of going to AFD. JJB 21:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't refer to any editor in particular -- its not my style. But Gandalf61 apparently got the message, as the article is no longer mere spamcruft. With respect to JJB's assumption that "notability is established on what can be sourced [and] not has been sourced," I must draw attention to Wikipedia policies on sourcing, OR and NOT. An author who can't be bothered to say anything substantial, and then provide only an advert blurb as a mere EL (not even as a source), is begging that the article be K-lined. Nowadays anyway (not 2006). But this AfD has done what AfDs are meant to do -- which is to determine whether any other editor cares enough about an article to make a go of it, and which Gandalf61 has done. So no need for anyone to get huffy about it. Of course, notability and encyclopedic merit has still not been asserted, but thats a different story. (see below). -- Fullstop (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is something that others provide, e.g. through acknowledgment (positive as well as negative) in book reviews or the like -- i.e. the work (or whatever) has been noted. In the case of this book, an assertion of notability might read something like this: The book has been through E editions/has been sold N times,[refs] has been translated into L languages. The book has been cited[refs] in numerous discussions of "Intelligent Design," and in N, reviewer R observed "..."[refs] Notability is not something that WP editors can be arbiters of, least of all using a web hit count (think OR). The easiest way to assert notability is to use sources, i.e. to have content, i.e. be encyclopedic. An article that uses sources to summarize what others say (of the subject) automatically asserts notability of the subject. It quite simple really, and doesn't even require personal judgment because the "notability bar" is altogether objective. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
