Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
m Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G1). (TW)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{db-nonsense}}
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 1px 0 0; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; font-size:10px">
{| width = "100%"
{| width = "100%"

Revision as of 15:53, 8 April 2008

< April 7 April 9 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. Possibly expand scope to List of entomological publishers. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of British entomological publishers

List of British entomological publishers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

See WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#LINK. Not sure if these companies are even notable. Also, seems pretty random; we don't have List of American entomological publishers, or even List of entomological publishers. Delete. ~EdGl (talk) 15:46, 8 April 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. Neıl ☎ 10:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guanikeyu

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

I am nominating this article for deletion for the following reasons: Hoax, unsourced and unverifiable. This is about a self proclaimed Leader of the Taino tribes of Puerto Rico. Anyone can self proclaim to be the leader of anything for that matter. The External links are of a website created by the same person. There is no proof of what this person claims to be and Wikipedia is not a media to promote those who self procliam themselves to be something which they are not. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Reilly (Northern Irish politician)

Henry Reilly (Northern Irish politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable local councillor, no references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:N and WP:BIO#Politicians. At first glance, I thought that he looked notable for having achieved some coverage of his view on EU funding, but the reference for that section turns out to be to just a link to the homepage of a UKIP blog (http://ukipswindonsouth.blogspot.com/). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. At first glance, he may seem notable because he has been covered multiple times as a result of his job as a politician. But there isn't much in the way of covering what he has done, or anything that makes him stand out from other politicians. Celarnor Talk to me 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim to inherent notability under WP:BIO, and insufficient apparent coverage to meet WP:N. No prejudice against re-creation if coverage is found. As an aside, I really like referring to defeated incumbents as being "eliminated". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a consequence of the single transferable vote system used in Ireland, north and south. Having lowest-placed candidates eliminated at the end of a round of vote-counting (with their votes then redistributed) is a huge improvement on the other sort of elimination, which unfortunately was not unknown in Ireland at various points in the 20th century. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - defection to UKIP generated some small attention, and being the only UKIP candidate contesting the Assembly election generated this article which basically confirms the substance of the current article, but this isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Warofdreams talk 01:40, 10 April 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. Unwilling to merge unverifiable information. Neıl ☎ 10:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Demo

1992 Demo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable demo. No coverage in reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all if any salvageable information to Beck. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nothing sourced = nothing salvagable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rock N Roll Worship Circus

Rock N Roll Worship Circus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article with no independent reliable sources (jesusfreakhideout.com is not reliable) on a band that peaked at #31 on Billboard's contemporary Christian album chart, which is not exactly the Hot 100. Started by user:Jason Gastrich, which takes me back a bit. Has been used to attack a member of the band that this band changed to, leading to an OTRS complaint. Guy (Help!) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a guideline, where are the reliable independent secondary sources? And do you really think that a charting just once,, that low, on a chart that specific, is what people had in mind? Guy (Help!) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I tend to think that if a band has had their albums reviewed by something as mainstream as Allmusic.com then it's pretty much a given that they are notable enough to merit an article on wikipedia. A quick google search indicates that they have indeed been the subject of multiple non-trivial mention in independent and reliable sources such as this, this, this and various more on top of the reviews here on Allmusic. Clearly qualifies as notable per criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC. Can I also point out that I'm not a Christian and have not even heard of the band before seeing this afd? It took me less than a minute to google them up to verify their notability. Just saying. --Bardin (talk) 07:18, 15 April 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. Ty 15:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole R. Wingate

Nicole R. Wingate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy delete declined. Subject has almost zero google hits and none are in any way notable or usable as a reference. The external link provided is apparently a page with only pictures, and that itself is broken. Written a little as self-promotion. Tan | 39 14:31, 8 April 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. Neıl ☎ 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six Finger Think Tank

Six Finger Think Tank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable. SFTT has done nothing earth shattering, and gets only ~50 google hits. Kingturtle (talk) 14:28, 8 April 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. Ty 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Duffy (Irish Artist)

Michael Duffy (Irish Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Irish artist. The only reference is this brief directory entry, so he fails WP:BIO. I PRODded the article a few weeks ago, but the PROD tag was later removed without comment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:40, 8 April 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 notable biography. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Dudley Binsted

George Dudley Binsted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, removed by author. Non-notable Red Cross worker. Wiki is not a memorial. 0 actual hits, no news. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No consensus, but please do the necessary clean-up and other work to make it more verifiabile, less cruft and less messy.--JForget 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of Arda

Realms of Arda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Unbelievable amount of both fan and listcruft; as someone not deeply emerged in Lord of the Rings lore, I have no idea what "Arda" even is. Incredibly low activity page; while that isn't necessarily grounds for deletion, I believe it is a clear indication of how non-notable this subject is. Does a poor job (if it can even be called a job) of explaining subject matter to those outside of the "fandom." ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jonny-mt 13:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be an annotated list of articles, useful for navigation and acceptable per WP:LIST. The low activity may be explained if this is a mature list that doesn't need much further expansion. --Itub (talk) 13:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Itub. Seems like a valid annotated list for navigation. Maybe should have "List of..." in the title, but that's an editorial decision.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is a list of placenames, a number of which appear only in the appendices to LOtR, on maps in the books and in Chris Tolkien's annotations. Many of the locations are communities, not "realms" -- in some cases, not even that organized -- and any inference that they constituted independent nations in any way is sheer speculation. It is not kept up to date, given the number of redirects if you hit the links. This list is also duplicated in several other articles, including Beleriand, Minor places in Arda, Minor places in Middle-earth and Minor places in Beleriand. (And could some of the Keep proponents elaborate on their "seems likes?" Are those guesses or backed by researching the point?)  RGTraynor  14:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Duplication may be an issue here, in fact it may be something that needs broader attention then just this article. Your comment is also the first and only policy based delete issue raised so far, since it wasn't mentioned I didn't go searching for every list of middle earth places. On that thought i'd still lean to asking the project involved to give attention to the duplication and merge/trim if needed. As to the use of the phrase "seems to..." I often use qualifiers like that because, with the exception of the most blatent violations, these are opinions. I try not to be dogmatic when it's not needed. After all I say keep, but that doesn't mean you don't have some valid points to raise.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply: I certainly don't have an objection to merging into the relevant articles, although from a casual glance they already seem to have such information as this one contains.  RGTraynor  15:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The title might be better since the setting is more usually known as Middle-Earth. The rest is a matter of improvement rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Agree also with Itub. A tweak needed here and there, but otherwise... --New Kind Of Grey (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate general article. Some of the individual ones are also notable, but that's no reason not to have this--perhaps some of the less notable individual ones will end up being merged here. the duplication argument doesnt hold. Every country in the article on, say, Asia also has an article of its own. DGG (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The chronological information makes this more than just a list. The introduction perhaps needs some context, but that can be fixed. The point of an encyclopedia isn't to be obvious to someone who wanders in accidentally, but to allow the reader to learn about something. --Dhartung | Talk 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, valid annotated list, useful and complete. IMO should have 'list of' in its title, but this is a style issue, not a deletion one. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:CLS SunCreator (talk)
  • Delete (Note: I am a Tolkien fan and a member of WP:WikiProject Middle-earth, which BTW should have been informed of the nomination.) Simple lists like this are inappropriate in case of fictional topics, especially with Tolkien's works: a) simple links to separate articles are useless, considering that most of them are candidates for merging; b) many of the notes currently attached to entries tend to drift into OR, and this cannot be emended without whole passages of annotation; c) as mentioned above, the list mixes up realms, regions and nations; d) possibly some appropriate replacement will be created in future, if ever some "Geography of Middle-earth" will be created (as a merge target for articles that do not deserve separate pages and at the same time do not suit "Minor places in ..."); e) as a link farm, it is mostly edited for updates after page moves etc.; f) finally, the page has been virtually replaced by Category:Middle-earth realms and by Template:Arda Realms Age1, Template:Arda Realms Age2, Template:Arda Realms Age3. Súrendil (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge. Done. Neıl ☎ 10:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Dead Yet? (video)

Are You Dead Yet? (video) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The video itself doesn't seem notable outside of the Children of Bodom article, or the article for the track/album. asenine t/c 13:36, 8 April 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. Singularity 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kaput

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

Contested prod, removed by author. concern = Non-notable artist. Fails WP:MUSIC; few ghits and no news articles. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge. Merging can be done at the discretion of the editors, and the article can be listed at WP:PM. After that, what is left can be speedied as housekeeping, if linked to this AfD Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeological Evidence of Gender in Central Otago Mining Communities

Archaeological Evidence of Gender in Central Otago Mining Communities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a contested prod. I'd like it to get a wider hearing at an afd, because I'm not so sure it is a personal essay. I can't work out if it is a suitable topic for an article or not, and would like that to be better discussed than the article simply lost through the prod process. Hiding T 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Hiding T 13:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not so much an essay as a survey of research, but the topic itself is not encyclopedic. Some of this could be used as sources in Central Otago Gold Rush, which at present has negligible cultural information about the miners. If the gender of the Otago gold miners is notable, which I doubt, it is only notable enough for a mention in that article. The central conclusion, "This archaeological evidence provides information which suggests that women played significant labour and social roles within mining communities," is a great topic for an archaeological survey article, but really doesn't seem that unexpected such that it would merit an entire encyclopedia article. --Dhartung | Talk 17:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge *content* to Central Otago Gold Rush (with appropriate cleanup/wikification of course). The *contents* of the article appear to be fundamentally sound (and all-in-all, I think its a commendable first contribution), but several conclusions (including the title) are patently WP:OR. The bulk of it would however (I think) contribute towards improving/expanding the 'Central Otago Gold Rush' article, incorporating the material on the "petticoat pioneers" within the framework of a more general "Social structures" (or whatever) section. The lack of any mention/link to the 'Central Otago Gold Rush' article suggests that the new editor might not have been aware of its existence. I've posted a request for content-salvage to Talk:Central Otago Gold Rush#Request for assistance. Too bad the edit histories can't be merged in this case. The new editor should be encouraged to contribute further. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:34, 8 April 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. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wack Pack

The Wack Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article resembles a fansite, primarily consists of original research, and lacks verifiable sources. Nearly all references are from the radio show's official site or fan blogs. Rtphokie (talk) 12:56, 8 April 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 under WP:SNOW as a neologism first used the day before the article was created, with no references and no Ghits. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blong

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

Listed for speedy deletion, speedy denied as this is a neologism that is not obviously ridiculous. Procedural nomination. I have no opinion. KnightLago (talk) 12:51, 8 April 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. Singularity 17:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twing

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

fails corp/org standards - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Below is the concerns I listed on the talk page:
Notability/importance concern
While vertical serach is a valid concept that requires an article, what about this company makes it notable?
Links concern

References concern
Both references address search engine theory; the statements utilizing these references do not talk about Twing at all.

Nothing in this article supports the notability of Twing. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. Neıl ☎ 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exient entertainment

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

Prod was contested. It's a non-notable company without proofs of reliable sources. I suspect the list of developed games are fake. Okay, I saw references but they are still failed to conform with WP:N. Dekisugi (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Dekisugi,
Exient Entertainment are a legitimate UK based company, who have developed a number of titles for Electronic Arts over the last few years, we have recently been asked by them to build up their profile by ensuring that they receive the accreditation their work deserves.
Best Regards
David Bancroft
Peppermint P
www.peppermintp.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bant78 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you can contact Companies House in the UK to verify that they are legitimate business through publicly available information, [2]

Exient were previously known as LIVE MEDIA UK LIMITED from 1997 - 2001 [3]

Also in the recent review of FIFA Street 3 on IGN, Exient are actually mentioned in the review. "Nintendo DS developer Exient's usually rocks pretty well in its handheld games like Madden" SOURCE: http://uk.ds.ign.com/articles/855/855726p1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bant78 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm torn. The company has developed some well known games, has won some sort of awards, and is mentioned in several publications, which would suggest notability. But without articles with more depth on the company, what is the article going to be built on apart from the list of developed games and a small profile? I did manage to find this mention but it's still not much. However I am willing to give the article the benefit of the doubt and say keep. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per this source on MCV citing the company's success, this one on GDN listing company details and this source from Spong, again verifying information. Admittedly, they haven't produced anything that has reached high critical acclaim, but that shouldn't be a barrier. What would help this article dramatically would be some sources such as developer interviews, company spotlight articles and so on. Gazimoff (talk) 07:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Neıl ☎ 10:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhura

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

This looks like a non-notable bit of free internet-based software which was released in late 2007. The few references are to lightweight promotional articles rather than serious coverage so I don't think that it passes WP:WEB. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhura is relatively new, but (a) has received critical acclaim from Script Frenzy, Creative Commons, and independent screenwriters/bloggers and (b) has a number of articles coming out in trade publications over the next month. My hope is this satisfies the notability requirement, although hard for me to tell from the text at WP:WEB. The goal here was to provide detailed information on how the product works, not marketing material. We just wanted something similar to the articles describing Google Docs, Final Draft, Celtx, etc. Orion Richardson (talk)

According to this edit: [4] Orion Richardson was involved in producing this software. --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, you are correct - I am affiliated with Zhura, hence the interest. To help with the notability argument, I've collected some reviews we've gotten:

In the screenwriting community, at least, our reputation and notability is good. Again, I don't know how that relates to Wikipedia notability, but wanted to alert you to it. Orion Richardson (talk)

  • Keep - at least a couple of those links seem non-trivial, and independent. -- Mark Chovain
  • Keep - The "non-notable bit of free ..." characterization, above, is specious, gratuitous, and suspect. There is active interest in the screenwriting community in applications like Zhura, Celtx, and Scripped as possible alternatives to costly perennial rivals Movie Magic, Final Draft, and Sophocles. More evidence, a recent review in noted screenwriter John Deer's weblog:

-- dkbrklyn (talk) 18:42, 17 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkowski Michal

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

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO and WP:LIVING. Also no reliable & verifiable sources per WP:RS and WP:V. One contribution author. Visor (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was No censensus to delete on WP:RS/WP:BIO discussion after 16 days. --JForget 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terry George (entrepreneur)

Terry George (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is purely promotional; subject does not meet notability requirements by a long way; page maintained by the article's subject; subject has promoted himself on many other articles. Claims within article vary between the grossly inflated (his 'status') or demonstrably untrue (1st Civil Partnership in the UK) Strongly suspect articles maintained also by meat - and sock-puppets. Alchemy12 (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same editor also further self-promoted his business on Mr Gay UK article. Article now brought to WP standards by other editors. Alchemy12 (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yet another WP:AUTO, based on the other contributions of the creator. No reliable sources, though notability could be considered marginal considering the state of Mr Gay UK and Bent (magazine), where he is mentioned, and where the account in question has also edited. It doesn't seem like enough to warrant trying to clean up this article, however.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've referenced 9 of the claims with reliable sources (Times, BBC, Yorkshire post), including the civil partnership claim (see the article talk page for caveat). Searching for and reading the references has convinced me the article deserves to be kept as the guy is notable enough. Definitely meets the "basic criteria" at Wikipedia:Notability (people), not sure what category he would fit into for "additional criteria" though. The article is too promotional (mostly in it's phrasing and the silly external links) but that can definitely be corrected by rewording it while sticking closely to the references added. The article is mainly maintained by User_talk:Daxuk. I don't think he is the article's subject although he obviously knows him as he's a photographer and has taken the photographs of him on the page. Ha! (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a meat-puppet query on Daxuk open at this time. IMHO a couple of appearances on low-grade TV shows and a lot of self-promotion doesn't add up to being notable. Civil Partnership claims remain untrue: see article talk page. At best, they were one of dozens of 'first couples'. --Alchemy12 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1.) I've based my opinion on reading the sources and the criteria - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". He meets the criteria because of the Times and Yorkshire Post articles (2.) It would have been fairer, in my opinion, to request the meatpuppet/sockpuppet check [5] first and then nominate the article after you had been proved right. Note that being a meatpuppet (if you're correct) is a bad thing, but the article's subject needs to be assessed on the criteria in Notability (people) (3.) WP: AUTO (if you're correct) is a bad thing as well but it strongly discourages someone from creating their own article rather than forbidding it. Neutrality and verifiability are it's concerns. You have already removed one claim that was not verifiable, which is a good thing, the rest of them seem more verifiable and haven't been removed. If you believe it's not neutral, you could balance it out. Ha! (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1) I read the sources, too and came to the polar opposite conclusion. Unless this very minor sort of 'personality' qualifies as Notable here these days. If so, I'll quote my own appearance in the Guardian newspaper and set up my own article! (grin) Plus, even the Civil Partnership photos suggested a press/publicity stunt (what was that giant red shoe all about?!) 2) Don't see how you arrive at a scale of fairness on that one, but you're entitled to your opinion. 3) Yes, I could balance it out but a) I wanted the wider WP community to judge it as is and b) a couple of the alleged sock/meatpuppets on related articles have just re-inserted stuff they liked a couple of times. I've better things to do than enter a pointless edit war on an article that may well bite the dust anyway. Whatever, I've simply drawn the article and the editors to the attention of the wider WP community: how it goes from here is not up to me. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Thought I'd have a stab at tweaking the article (I have a cold and nothing more thrilling to do). Reads a bit less like a promo now, hopefully, but still not notable in my books. Others may disagree. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1.) I don't believe sentences such as the one including the (grin) comment are helpful. I recommend sticking to facts. (2.) What I'm getting at (sorry, I really should have been more open and stated it) is that I think it's possible you're using one (unproven) claim to support the other. If you have proved the puppetry and then done the AfD then your allegation of puppetry wouldn't be an allegation, it would be a proven fact. (3.) I cannot assume good faith in your edits any more. See my comment on IP 81.159.211.87 below. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In case you didn't notice, I have said plainly both here and (I think) on the puppet page that this is my first time doing this. If you can't cut a newbie some slack... I'm pointing out that I believe the article to be iffy and possibly cobbled together my sockpuppets. One may support the other, but I have not made that assertion. That plus your knee-jerk reaction below kinda makes me feel free to set aside WP:AGF for you, too. Jeez! --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Can anyone vote on this? New to this. Anyway... Boils down to "has small column in low-circulation publication, been on telly a couple of times, owns a pub, not straight." If that's notable then so are half the people I have ever met. Promo piece and WP:AUTO 81.159.211.87 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that from this edit it appears that Alchemy12 and the IP address 81.159.211.87 are the same. The relevant section is "Forgive me if my replies are perhaps not swift. As I say, right now I have to jump through a few hoops to see anything updated on this site. Will have a word with some technical bods. 81.159.211.87 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC) : please note, I now have an ID as (finally) we have a stable IP address here. Alchemy12 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)" (I haven't squashed the two comments together, they were written together like that in the same paragraph). That IP has also made changes to the Terry George article just after Alchemy12 has. In my opinion there's more going on here than a simple AfD. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are one and the same. And yes, I wrote the comment you quoted. I'm hardly hiding that, I said it outright! The battery on my notebook ran out so I switched to my Mac while hunting for the power brick. I guess I was still logged in to WP on one and not on the other, didn't notice. As I don't use the Keep Me Signed In Option (shared computers) it's highly probable. But so what? Is it the vote you don't like? I did ask if I was meant to. Is it me personally you don't like? Bad day? Anyway, all rhetorical. Think it's better to just let you get on with it. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, sod it. I'll just delete both alerts if I can. If this is the sort of crap reasonably conscientious editors have to put up with no wonder they're so thin on the ground. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 8 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wizards of Waverly Place Turn-the-Charm-A-thon

Wizards of Waverly Place Turn-the-Charm-A-thon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

contested prod. Not notable television scheduling information. Torchwood Who? (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 22:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Horlor

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

WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Article about Sean Horlor written by Sean Horlor. Completely non-notable poet whose two little chapbooks both fail WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 07:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per Bearcat's research that he beat me to. This is fine at the dead minimum for stub-length article, and can always grow later like any other short article. The subject made a mistake in writing it himself, but we don't expect people to know all the rules and special jargon here when starting. Mistakes happen. If the article itself is fine in the end and compliant with our needs and policies, no big deal. Lawrence § t/e 23:05, 9 April 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. Neıl ☎ 10:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raffles Resort Canouan Island

Raffles Resort Canouan Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Created by user:Raffleseme. So there is blatant COI. Is it notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:25, 8 April 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. Singularity 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Barkley

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

Been three days since the creation of the article, and no notability has been established. Google doesn't come up with anything substantial, nor does Google news. BuddingJournalist 06:04, 8 April 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. Even with the large number of SPAs, there was a clear consensus that this article fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Blueboy96 13:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairinvestment.co.uk

Fairinvestment.co.uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for not specially noatble company. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Similarly, I find vast numbers of press releases, but nothing independently notable that warrants the business having its own article here. I strongly advise that all those wishing to comment on this AfD familiarise themselves with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Canvassing if they haven't done so already. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Keep and get the odor of dirty socks out with quick and dirty blocks please. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete Let’s begin again… The employees of the company in question feel it is not unreasonable to be considered for entry in Wikipedia, this is based on the fact the company has a unique business model in a young and emerging industry. Currently there are Wikipedia entries for Moneysupermarket, uSwitch, MoneyExpert and reviewcenter.com to name but a few, all of which operate similar business models. There for the argument for inclusion is that the company is a big player in an interesting a researched market, the article is objective and not written as an advert there are other similar companies with pages some of which are considerably smaller than Fair Investment Company and so if Wikipedia wants to provide a true reflection of this market it’s important that Fair Investment Company is included. So far arguments on the other side are “it smells like spam” and something about socks which is ridiculous if not down right arrogant. I'd appreciate a real argument from that side. Matt edwards 999 (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Arrogant? That a bunch of new accounts mysteriously appear just to defend your company? How about a real argument from you? JuJube (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your statement above speaks for itself. Objectivity and creativity (two words I'm sure are important to Wikipedia) would have meant you'd list what you'd like changed to the article but instead it's just a random bunch of meaningless comments about spam etc... The fact three do not deletes came up is not mysterious but is because they were made by three editorial staff who authored the article and therefore have inherent value in it's publication. If one person would lay down an objective counter to what I've said above I'd be happy to answer this. And 'Spam' is not a counter. Matt edwards 999 (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry but bringing multiple people forward from the company to influence the outcome that compromises the forming of consensus of Wikipedians who presumably did not create an account for such a purpose is not only Wikipedia:Canvassing, but also presents Wikipedia:Conflict of interest concerns if you yourself say they are "employees of the company". The articles you mention as examples are included in Wikipedia because they are supported by independent reliable sources that satisfy the notability critera. It is my opinion that the article doesn't satisfy said criteria. The fact that Fairinvestment is part of this market does not inherently mean it may have an article here. WilliamH (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So how does our article differ from the other organisations mentioned above? Matt edwards 999 (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It differs because they have secondary reliable sources(WP:RS). For example uSwitch has an article in the Times and also one in the Guardian paper(actually looking again, even those may fail WP:RS). Fairinvestment requires reliable source so that it can meet notability(WP:N), if it can't then it most likely it will be deleted. ChessCreator (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It differs because myself, and other Wikipedians believe it doesn't satisfy the notability criteria. The other articles do so, but because they do, they are irrelevant in terms of this discussion. Similarly, you may wish to read this. WilliamH (talk) 12:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP No evidence provided of verifiable, reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A press release on the sites linked fail WP:RS. SPA accounts noted above. DarkAudit (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:WEB, WP:CORP. A search of Google News UK [7] turns up only 24 unique hits, every single one either a press release or a quote on a web article from the ubiquitous James Caldwell, the outfit's director. None are articles about the company, as WP:RS requires. Mr. Edwards is a new editor -- so no reason to bite - but like others, I strongly recommend that he gain familiarity with the relevant Wikipedia policies, so that he can suggest an actual valid policy ground to keep this article.  RGTraynor  14:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An online services company that does not provide clear indicia of notability. Reads like a press release: Businesses have the ability to transform deprived communities through the intelligent use of resources. The directors of Fair Investment believe strongly that supporting and empowering entrepreneurship within communities provides a more sustainable wealth creation model. . '' - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Do not delete: I am Editorial Manager of Fairinvestment.co.uk and although I understand the arguments being made, I would really like to take this opportunity to argue the case for Fairinvestment.co.uk having a page on Wikipedia. Firstly, on Fairinvestment.co.uk not being a big player in the financial comparison/news arena: The site attracts 66,000 unique visitors a week and is a Hitwise Top 100 website – the news section alone attracts 7,000 readers a week, and news stories on the website are always high in Google news rankings. For example, by typing in 'car insurance' into Google news, a fairinvestment.co.uk story (about Sainsburys car insurance in fact) is number 2 in the rankings, and if you type in the word 'endowment' a fairinvestment.co.uk story is ranked third (although this may well of changed by the time you read this!).

In terms of Fair Investment and James Caldwell only being quoted in our own releases and stories, I am afraid this is just not true. Our research and comment is well respected by journalists, and used frequently in independent news stories: The links below are just a few recent examples:

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/insurance/the-english-patient-and-the-rise-of-pmi-plans-765408.html

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/consumer_affairs/article3290109.ece

http://www.sundayherald.com/business/businessnews/display.var.2174616.0.ten_ways_to_beat_the_credit_crunch.php

http://www.sundayherald.com/business/businessnews/display.var.2174616.0.0.php

http://www.whatmortgage.co.uk/mortgages/105799/55/Insurance_news/Homeowners_urged_to_check_insurance.htm

http://www.ftadviser.com/FTAdviser/Mortgages/News/article/20071101/a24a6ad4-ea2e-11dc-ab39-0015171400aa/First-time-buyers-not-yet-put-off-by-dip-in-property-market.jsp

http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/Fairtrade-and-ethical-investment-a?id_mot=19

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/public/showPage.html?page=ifa2006_articleimport&tempPageName=702502

Rachelmason81 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC) — User:Rachelmason81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • General Comment: This from WP:COI, one of the official Wikipedia guidelines: "If ... you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes) ... then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest that would make your edits non-neutral (biased)." (emphasis in the original)  RGTraynor  18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How many socks voted "Do not Delete" in this AfD debate? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added a citation to The Times which is a journal of record. This plus the verifiable facts that the company exists and has been quoted by the UK press on multiple occasions seems ample to demonstrate notability. The existence of COI and the tone of the article are not reasons to delete the article but just reasons to tag or edit it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You added a citation that requires a registration to read. Since I don't work for a library, it's probable that my request for a trial subscription would be denied. Since most editors are likely to be in the same situation, this reference cannot be reasonably vetted. DarkAudit (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see reliable sources which states, Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London.... And note that I do not work for a library either. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Colonel Warden's correct that the fact that the link he posted is behind a paywall is irrelevant; the same is still true of the large majority of high quality sources. But it's also available free on the Times' own website here; and Fia more important problem is that it's a mere four sentences which provide no independent analysis, and in fact do little more than confirm that the company exists. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation is adequate for the fact which it supports. The coverage is slight so per WP:ORG, If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.. We have other sources coming in (see below) and so notability is established. Note that notability is not fame or importance. We merely need to be satisfied that the organisation is worthy of notice. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I've had a chance to read the article in question, it's yet another in a long line of trivial mentions. None of these citations have been 'about the company, but only mentioned in passing as one in a multitude of similar firms. Multiple trivial mentions is still trivial mentions. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a matter of imagination, as you insultingly suggest. The paragraph in the Times is clearly about this company. It is not a major feature article on them but I am not suggesting that it is. Their article seems to be a magazine piece covering a variety of financial news. Since the Times considers that the advent of this company was worthy of notice then we should be guided accordingly. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A paragraph? Out of how many in the article as a whole? They may be mentioned, but the article as a whole is clearly not about this company. Not one of the articles that has been presented as evidence has been about the company. It has all been trivial or incidental. DarkAudit (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Keep as real place, cleanup and move to Maria Auxiliadora, Guanajuato. Tikiwont (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maria auxiliadora

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

No google hits for location. Would need substantial re-write even for stub, no references available. Tan | 39 05:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Even if it WAS sourced, I don't see how some touristy Mexican ghost town is notable.Helixweb (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Named, populated places have repeatedly been judged to be notable (WP:OUTCOMES). There are sources for this one—try Googling for "María Auxiliadora" +Guanajuato (note the accent in "María"). The article does need to be rewritten to eliminate the stuff about individual shops, etc., and to be moved to a better title. Deor (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for the new Google search - missed the accent! Recommend keep per new sources provided by Deor. Tan | 39 22:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar enough with the naming conventions to know what the title of this article should be. Apparently there are other places, even in Mexico, with this name, so should it be something like María Auxiliadora (Guanajuato, Mexico)? Deor (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, probably Maria Auxiliadora (Mexico). Tan | 39 22:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blueboy96 13:34, 13 April 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. Singularity 08:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cave Clan

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

Another non-notable urban exploration-related group. While they have made the news on a few occasions, a large section of the content involves describing their members background, general safety issues (really, don't go into drains when it's raining?), and general graffiti text. This can really be summed up better at urban exploration without mention of the Cave Clan. seicer | talk | contribs 05:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep While not evident in the article, this group features heavily in local press and is regarded by many as a local institution. I understand your concerns. It just needs more work. Dmod (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like a self-bio. Don't see any explanation in the article as to how this club could be even remotely notable. If it is featured in local press, like the above user asserted, local sourcing needs to be added to the article, and incorporated into some sort of explanation why any of the rest of us should care.Helixweb (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group are well known throughout Australia, they often get mentioned in the media, and have helped the federal government in Anti-terrorism matters. With members across Australia, and in areas of europe, the US & Canada, they are possibly the largest Urban exploration group in the world. It seems recent deletions and straying from topic have been primarily due to one editor. Once this issue has been resolved I have no doubt the positive editors can make this into an informative and appropriate article. S.Nadir (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, seems to be a promotional by a non-notable group. I am aware of them off-wiki but it's really not stuff that would normally be considered within encyclopaedic coverage and would be very difficult indeed to reliably source. Orderinchaos 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The are several reliable sources in the article; I have just added two more, could you take another look? Celarnor Talk to me 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The group *is* a rather major urban exploration organisation, recognised (whether they love 'em or hate 'em) by urban explorers worldwide. While this article has been POV disrupted in the past, it *is* well referenced. Perhaps there *are* a couple of lame parts to it (no draining when raining, for example), but none of these really justify a deletion. They've been around since the mid 80's and in that time their members (and there's a lot of them) have discovered sites worldwide. Quite notable, with the references to back it up. SMC (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —SMC (talk) 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It reads like an advert and is not a notable subject. There is not a lot of content that can be added to this article, as the Clan prefer to keep most of their activities secret, so finding more refs would be quite difficult. And the history section about a group of guys discovering some guys name written in cement in a drain and then meeting the guys sister sound ridiculous. The most recent addition to the activities section should also come out as this reads a lot like an adventure tourism promo.. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 09:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, the idea of the sister etc. was to clarify that their "inspiration" was in fact not an urban explorer but rather a drain builder. SMC (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument. There are more references in this article than there are on many that get kept in AfDs. They are all substantial. I have added two more sources; one is BBC coverage. Could you have a look at it again? Celarnor Talk to me 13:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't count on Adam changing his view. He's very much opposed to this group, evidenced through his talk page contributions. SMC (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt this article would have attracted the nomination for deletion had it not been for all Adam's counter-productive edits. S.Nadir (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been on the back of my mind for a while, after seeing other urban exploration/ghost-related groups go by the wayside. seicer | talk | contribs 18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wayside? the level of hot discussion here indicates very much otherwise. Perhaps you're a little jealous seicer? 119.11.7.53 (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I and several other editors have been trying to clean this article up prior to this AFD, even attempting to address some of the concerns here (ie. referencing), but these efforts were reverted by Adam. I see he's been indef blocked for harassing another user. Perhaps we'll have a proper chance now of improving this article. SMC (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of coverage in secondary sources.". That seems to be very much the case here. Celarnor Talk to me 13:49, 8 April 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. Singularity 08:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kapla (disambiguation)

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

Delete.No reason to have this. Per WP:D, "A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions," not to mention it's a non-English fictional word... Tan | 39 05:34, 8 April 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. While only one person (the nominator) contributed to this debate, the BLP concerns were serious enough not to let this run another five days. Blueboy96 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode

Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article lacks references from major news sources. Instead, it carries references from a "South Asia Terrorism Portal" enthusiasts' group. The article is trying to paint this guy as a terrorist when it clearly has no hard facts, and no good references to make such a claim. If we have no good references that he blew up an airplane, then the guy is not notable. Such a claim should have multiple world renowned references. Googling the subject does not produce any Lester 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment by User:Lester: At first glance, the article appears referenced. However, on closer inspection, the references are not supporting the claims. There seems to be 2 main claims:
  • Claim #1: He is the leader of terrorist group "International Sikh Youth Federation" (ISYF). This claim is not supported by the inline reference, and besides, it is not notable because this organization does not have its own Wiki article anyway.
  • Claim #2: He was involved in the bombing of an Air India plane. This appears to be the only possibly notable point about the man known as Lakhbir Singh Brar Rode. Were there arrests, charges, a court case or convictions? No. Then how can we say it? Where are the major news agencies supporting the claim?
If you Google him, or click my Google search link in my first paragraph (above), it returns 3 pages of websites. These consist of Wikipedia, Wikipedia derivatives (such as Answers.com), and a stack of blogs and minor sites. Wikipedia cannot say he blew up an Air India plane if the major news organizations are not going to make such a claim.Lester 21:29, 8 April 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 and redirect to where no man has gone before. There is no justifiable reason to keep an article whose subject only generates five Google hits. Blueboy96 13:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Boldly Go

To Boldly Go (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am tempted to refuse stating a reason beyond this. Either way, this is not an encyclopedic article and never will be; so for the love of god let's get rid of it. Dorftrottel (troll) 05:06, April 8, 2008 05:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I sincerely hope you are not trying to argue here that the only thing it takes is the topic not being a complete hoax. There is no information on the notability of the subject matter, and no reliable sources to verify that prerequisite. As for redirecting it to Where no man has gone before see WP:RFD#DELETE#7.: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." So unless someone comes up with at least one single source to verify that "To Boldly Go" (with capitals!) has actually been used ever there is most certainly no "consensus to redirect": Policy mandates that it should be deleted. Please make sure to actually open and read all those very relevant links before inevitably repyling. Dorftrottel (troll) 08:13, April 8, 2008
  • In this instance, because searches for the phrase do seem to be common enough and it is a legitimate search term and consistent per the First pillar with specialized encyclopedia on phrases that a rediect to the other article would indeed be worthwhile and would allow us to keep public the contribution history of anyone who worked on it. If you check below, you'll see that "To Boldly Go" has served as the title of multiple articles and essays. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should vote to keep only after you have come up with sufficient sources. Dorftrottel (troll) 08:13, April 8, 2008
  • Yes, that's the same Jeremy Maiden. As the Colonel undoubtedly knows, the magazine far predated the internet and thus is impossible to "verify", based on the definition of the concept being used here. A few articles by Mr. Maiden relating to variations on the core rules for Diplomacy are available on-line, including Silly Diplomacy 2 1/2, Diplomacy I (rn13), and Geophysical Diplomacy, but sadly nearly all the articles and other materials written/created by him have either never been online (and thus are not "verifiable" or "notable") or they have simply disappeared over the years as websites die and the content is lost. ASpafford (talk) 08:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. It is explicit policy that we encourage articles which are WP:IMPERFECT in order that they may be improved. I am an expert in this general topic and have some familiarity with the sources. These are not so easy to access as a Google search and so proper time should be allowed for this. Your impatient desire to delete this matter rather than work on it is contrary to our deepest principles. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Very much yes. Until the point in time when you or someone else brings up an actual reliable source, you are in favour of deletion by default. Period. Dorftrottel (warn) 12:12, April 8, 2008
  • I prefer to use policy for something as serious and destructive as deletion. See WP:PROVEIT which states, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references. It is important to strike a balance between being quick to remove unsourced material that is clearly wrong or in some way damaging, and at the same time making sure that challenges are reasonable, and that editors are given a reasonable amount of time to find supporting sources. Before you challenge unsourced material, ask yourself whether you really do doubt that the material is accurate. Unsourced material should not be removed simply because of a difference of opinion." So, does anyone here really doubt that this material is accurate? Is this haste really justifed? Colonel Warden (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: This article has been around for two years now. That is quite ample time to come up with reliable sources, and there is no more "haste" involved here than in any AfD. If, as you claim, you are an expert as far as this particular game goes, then you are as qualified as anyone to produce such sources, and since the AfD has a few more days to run, you've time to do so. If you cannot, then I submit that suggests more that such sources do not in fact exist than they're just hiding somewhere. While you've mentioned several policies and guidelines, I'm sure you're aware that the fundamental Wikipedia policy that trumps everything else is WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (emphasis in the original) There, there's your policy, indeed the very one from which you quoted.  RGTraynor  15:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding WP:V, are you suggesting that every paragraph/section, or every sentence, should be footnoted even when nearly all the information presented is directly verifiable via the game's website? I'm asking this in all seriousness, because it seems that maybe one in a fifty wikipedia articles meets that kind of strict standard (usually involving lots of direct quotes and literary citations which aren't applicable here), and if the policy is that loosely enforced it hardly seems grounds for deleting this article. If you'd clarify, I'd gladly do some footnoting to address your concerns, but I suspect you'd simply change arguments and say it's still not notable and that I would have wasted my time. ASpafford (talk) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one do not doubt its accuracy; I think the notability and secondary sourcing issues may have some legitimacy, but I think even in a worst case scenario we could make a reference in the other article on the phrase about how it's used in such manners as this game with what sources we do have here serving as sources in that article. Per the GFDL, we would then redirect without deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If not a single reliable source exists telling us that the game actually exists (according to WP:V - i.e. our knowledge of its existence from self-published sources doesn't matter) - it has to go per Wikipedia's core policies. That an article about another topic under the same article title could be written/redirected seems quite irrelevant to me, and there would be no point keeping the edit history of a mostly unrelated topic. --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's Dead, Jim: Zero reliable sources, almost zero on G-hits. That doesn't merely fail WP:V, WP:N and WP:WEB, that's lower than the belly of the earthworm rummaging beneath the sub-basement.  RGTraynor  14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. While it's certainly verifiable and an article on it would be encyclopedic per the five pillars, there isn't much in the way of secondary sources with which to expand the article. Celarnor Talk to me 17:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*TECHNICAL ERROR - This AFD is not linked from the article. SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Technical error repaired. Not sure what went wrong though, appeared to be substed properly.. Weird. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete there is no real evidence that this is important. But I am not aware of the significance of "PBeM Base International top 10 of 1999" --if that can be shown to be a major award, then it might be enough Are their other selections in WP? If they are, this should be also. If nobody has so far thought the others WP-worthy, then, given the strong game-orientation of WP, this probably isnt either. I'll defer to a specialist whobvknows about this. DGG (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the degree it counts, I've played PBMs and have been an RPG author and gamer for thirty years, and this is the first I've ever heard of "PBeM Base International." While it does exist (there are, after all, a whopping 23 Google hits for the term), that doesn't suggest it's particularly notable.  RGTraynor  19:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as long as the PBEM award can be referenced (which I acknowledge isn't there at the moment). That should yield an independent source with substantive content. Otherwise I anm content to wait, the article isn't hurting anyone. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the site exists anymore. But in any case, I did some bit of research on this "PBeM Base International", and it seems to have just been a Geocities site that listed Play by email games and allowed visitors to vote for their favorites (Archive.org version). Thus, it doesn't seem like it would be a good independent reliable source, nor would I call that award particularly notable. BuddingJournalist 22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid article that meets our core policies and would not be out of place in an encyclopedia of strategy games. Catchpole (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you asked, my recommendation is (b). We already have a dab page at To boldly go, containing links to two pages: Where no man has gone before and this article. I think this article should be deleted and the dab page, which will become useless in either case, turned into the redirect to Where no man has gone before, since the version without headline capitalization seems a much more likely search term. Deor (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any references that couldn't have been create by a couple of determined people in a few days. Even if it exists this is just a play-by-mail game using slightly newer technology. 100 players in a PBM is not notable. If a good reference to an award can be turned up I'll change my mind. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: "web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". A redirect to where no man has gone before would be fine, but only after this article's history has been deleted. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 15:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the redirect that won't happen: Please see and read this. The page at To boldly go will be redirected, most probably to Where no man has gone before. The redirect at To boldly go will automatically redirect the all-initial-cap "To Boldly Go". The redirect is therefore not needed and in fact advised against: "Note: Related redirects are needed only if the article title has two or more words and words following the first have different capitalisations. They are not needed, for example, for proper names which are all initial caps." (original emphasis!) Best regards, Dorftrottel (talk) 02:10, April 10, 2008
  • Keep I was the creator of this article, so naturally my vote is biased, and I'd gladly attempt any improvements that would make the article viable in the eyes of those voting for deletion. I am aware of the notablility concern, but have been caught in a catch-22 -- the "reputable" on-line citations that make TBG "notable" under the interpretation of wikipedia guidelines simply no longer exist. When TBG was new in late '90's and free games of its type and quality were unusual, it was easy to find reputable articles/reviews/sources on-line about it that would be considered notable within the context of the free-to-play turn-based strategy gaming community. Obviously, notability has to be viewed in that context, or the entire concept is meaningless. But of course that was a decade ago. TBG stopped being new, and combined with the drop-off in turn-based gaming, people stopped writing about it much (or most other games of it's type that weren't for-profit or income-generating to some degree), and the old articles/reviews gradually went away. That doesn't mean TBG stopped being notable, it just means that verification under wikipedia standards becomes far more difficult. Personal knowledge doesn't count here, but TBG is unquestionably a notable game within it's niche (or at least was -- it is admittedly long in the tooth and less popular than it was say six or more years ago; however even a once notable game would still be worthy of a wikipedia article, especially a still-active one). So how can that be established to the satisfaction of those in favor of deletion? ASpafford (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If reputable sources existed back in the late 90s online, you should still be able to find the http://www.archive.org versions. What specific sources covered the game back in the day? BuddingJournalist 15:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've attempted to use that site, but I always get timed out. The PBeM Base International site, review and award was cached somewhere many years ago but is gone now. Someone above called its notablility into question above, although the link they provided doesn't seem to work. Regarding non-online sources, Flagship Magazine referenced TBG back in the day (not sure if there was ever a full review), but I have no idea what issues, and the few copies that are accessable online aren't helpful. I'll try to remember the names of other sources, but after all these years those are the two that come to mind. ASpafford (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, it's a shame archive.org can't get better servers. Anyway, the PBeM Base site is working for me at the moment: http://web.archive.org/web/19990117015748/http://webxxx.schlund.de/pbembase/pbem.htm. Could you explain what makes the award or the organization notable? From my limited research on Google, it seemed to just be a site where visitors could click to vote on their favorite games (hence the "award" cited in the article?). Its archived page also seems to indicate it would not be considered a "reliable source" as defined by Wikipedia (note the "add/edit a game", which implies user-generated content). Furthermore, WP:N notes that a subject should receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This means, then, that a brief reference in a magazine is probably not enough to establish notability, as I certainly wouldn't call it "significant". Indeed, I've been mentioned in multiple newspapers that are considered reliable sources, and I'm probably "notable" in my niche of a community, but that doesn't mean I'm notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. BuddingJournalist 21:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see it now, thanks. There were a lot of "independent" reviews of games too -- as I recall the site was quite serious about covering a broad range of PBEM games in an evenhanded way (although there was a strong European bent; I think they were based in Germany), while encouraging players to list new games. The awards were issued based not just on visitor/player voting, but also on reviews by PBeM Base International staff (probably volunteers) and comments/feedback on those reviews, but that undoubtedly leaves room for fan manipulation. Just like All-Star game voting in some sports. Anyway, I know there were other PBEM news and information sites/sources that covered/referenced TBG, but my memory and search skills (or on-line archiving) have failed me. And it seems likely that new reasons would be found to reject them anyway based on slippery notions of notability and significance that seem mostly to do with mass-popularity and profit -- e.g., Hollywood films that show on 1,000 screens, vs small-budget independent films showing at a little festival or two. But I do appreciate your polite consideration of my posts. ASpafford (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per the above. WP:RS, WP:V, & WP:N violations make this anathema to a anything with even vaguely encyclopedic aspirations. Eusebeus (talk) 11:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a shame that the standards are being applied in such a way that very few free or open-source games (especially older ones) are deemed worthy even when they are notable within their genre/niche. I assume all of these -- [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (similar to the TBG page; seems like a nice article), [19], [20], [21], [22] (is the review "reputable"?), [23], [24], [25] (and many others) should be deleted as well? ASpafford (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If, as you say, they are notable, then there should exist reliable third-party sources that can back up the claim of notability. BuddingJournalist 21:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, most of these games, however beloved of their players, have a tiny base and very little, if any, notability even within the gaming community, let alone the wider world. Beyond that, Wikipedia's policies on verifiability are fairly staunch. If no reliable sources exist, then claims to notability are threadbare at best.  RGTraynor  21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they should not be deleted, only improved, as we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ? I do not understand your reasoning. How does "we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers" apply to those articles exactly? That does not have any bearing on whether or not they satisfy Wikipedia's criteria of inclusion (WP:V, WP:N, etc.). What if I create an article about myself? Can I argue that because "we are a paperless encyclopedia with a diverse community of editors, donors, and readers", it should not be deleted? BuddingJournalist 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I suppose it depends where you are a journalist for; a journalist can be worthy of inclusion and I'm sure we have articles on journalists of varying degrees of notability (not every person is Napoleon or Caesar, but you don't have to be one of the most notable figures of history to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. In a sense, by having a userpage, you do have something like an article (I know that's a slight stretch, but the userpage takes up the same amount of disk space). Anyway, though, these articles concern games (not people) that are notable to more than just a regular person's family, friends, and acquaintances. Plus, we do have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is getting kind of off-topic of the main issue (To Boldly Go). Suffice it to say, you have not convinced me that these games are notable (as defined by Wikipedia; although from skimming some of the articles, it looks like some of them may well be, but not all); all you've done is stated that they are. Anyway, back to "To Boldly Go", could you please describe why exactly your "Strong keep" vote is in sync with WP:V and WP:N? I fail to see how the article demonstrates the notability ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable") of the game. (p.s. I'm not exactly a journalist per se ;), and I can assure you, I am not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.) Almost any game is bound to have some sort of niche audience (even if it's just the coder's friends); that doesn't mean that they all deserve an article in Wikipedia. I could code a game, release it to my friends/larger community, perhaps even garner >100 users and brief mentions online—maybe even in a local paper. But that hardly fits the criteria of WP:N, and I don't see much of a difference between that hypothetical and "To Boldly Go". BuddingJournalist 00:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I didn't say they were all notable, although some of them appear to be within the context of their own niche/genre (with others it's impossible to tell because they're basically stubs of arguably far less value than this article). However they are all pretty clearly articles that fail the broad WP:V and WP:N standards being applied here. As for TBG specifically, I agree the difficulty here is meeting the high notablility standard. And I'm not arguing that all games deserve wikipedia articles. However, your hypothetical seems to me right around the threshold of what should be sufficient in the internet age where such games (like TBG) often have a global player base, even though the total numbers are quite modest. Otherwise, the game articles in wikipedia will be little more than the shills of for-profit games that effectively buy "notability" (a well-known practice of most for-profit games is to mail free software to "journalists", provide free access and percs, etc...). I realize that this has moved into a broader discussion, and I do not really expect to "save" this article based on the majority of responses. I simply find it disappointing that (with some fairly limited exceptions) games must be either "massive" or have a large enough marketing budget. ASpafford (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect the dab page to "where no man has gone before". Nothing said about this 'award' has convinved me it's any more important than a recommendation from Joe Schmoe's personal blog. That leaves a google search which isn't turning up anything and no presentation of anything resembling a reliable (let alone in-depth) source. Someoneanother 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 08:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angus Mullane

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

Subject is not notable; article eludes speedy with only the most tenuous assertion of notability. Creator removed prod without showing notability. Dethme0w (talk) 04:33, 8 April 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 no assertion of notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Ang

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

Why do kids post things like this about themselves? Basically just a run-down of his school record. Not notable as a musician or as a writer. Qworty (talk) 04:14, 8 April 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. Despite the one "delete" !vote, I think that the consensus is by far obvious enough for this to be closed per WP:SNOW, especially given that I have withdrawn and that the article has been improved significantly. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xlibris

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

No assertation of notability, only source is trivial. Seems to be a vanity press. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn Very good WP:HEY work on this article, looks good to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Qworty apparently removed the highly appropriate category of "book publishing companies". (I reinserted it with "of the US".) I don't understand. It publishes books. What else is it? --Dhartung | Talk 09:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was trying to WP:HEY the article using these sources, but Wikipedia (especially article space) has suddenly become slower than a teenager asked to take out the garbage. Hopefully someone can pick up where I left off. Good night. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. There are sources, but they mostly seem to be trivial. Celarnor Talk to me 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. They are just a vanity press, not a major legitimate press like, say, HarperCollins. Xlibris will print books for anyone who's willing to open a checkbook and pay. That's not how legitimate, notable authors operate, and that's not how legitimate, notable publishers operate. The average Xlibris title sells only a few copies, most of them to the authors themselves, who then distribute them to friends or family. No real, notable author will order books printed from Xlibris; real, notable authors get advances from legitimate book publishers--they don't have to pay vanity presses! This is why Xlibris has NO notable authors. If they have no notable authors, then they are not a notable publisher. If they are not a notable publisher, we must delete. Qworty (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sill, Xlibiris has been discussed in multiple books and newspaper articles, which is the most important thing to keep in mind when discussing Wikipedia notability standards. Your argument isn't grounded in any policies or guidelines. Zagalejo^^^ 06:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to disagree with you about his argument not being grounded in policy. Take a look at WP:Notability and you'll see that this is written : "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Key words here are significant, reliable, and presumed.Helixweb (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Biography:
Main Entry: bi·og·ra·phy
Pronunciation: \bī-ˈä-grə-fē also bē-\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural bi·og·ra·phies
Etymology: Late Greek biographia, from Greek bi- + -graphia -graphy
Date: 1683
1 : a usually written history of a person's life 2 : biographical writings as a whole 3 : an account of the life of something (as an animal, a coin, or a building)
  • In other words, the article was written by someone within the company to promote their own interests. Take a look at the rather limited contributions of the original author of the article [1] - four spam entries and one sandbox test - and I think that says everything that needs to be said about this article. Looks better, worth keeping. Helixweb (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources for expansion are voluminous, ranging from authors' publishing guides to technical discussions on using their software. Apparently what we have is an article with a long copyvio removed and left as a stub, only receiving nag tags since, but it isn't even in a proper category for people to find and fix it. --Dhartung | Talk 07:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, press itself seems notable, even if most of the books they publish are not.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there are some scarce sources avalable, so it's not completely non-notable, which per WP:CORP should be enough - but it's also just one small publisher among many. And most material available about it seems to be promotional/press-releases, and I suspect if kept this simply will remain an ad - so also no harm done if it's deleted. --Minimaki (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Given the sheer number of times I see it mentioned in author publishing guides, there's going to be heaps of references. Yes, it's a vanity press and the article needs to clearly state that, but it's one of the two most prominant vanity presses in the States (Publish America being the other, and sleezer, one). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Zalagejo's sources are convincing enough. WP:RS requires sources to be about the subject, not for them to discuss the subject for some (undefined) amount of column-inches. I'm also unsure where in Wikipedia guideline or policy being a vanity press is a deletion ground, and wouldn't mind a link to it.  RGTraynor  14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has been completely rewritten from reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 17:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good job finding some additional sources. Celarnor Talk to me 18:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nice WP:HEY, would prefer {{notability}} was used before Afd raised, such things could save us all some time. SunCreator (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No reason why major vanity publishers should not have an entry, where independent sources exist, as long as their nature is made 100% clear. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:01, 8 April 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.

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Writersworld
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under G10 as entirely negative page about living people with no neutral version.--Kubigula (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto mafia

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

Completely unsourced, and accuses living people of criminal activity. Clear violation of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:BLP. Contested prod, removed by author without explanation, as usual. eaolson (talk) 03:19, 8 April 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. Notability exists. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bovis Lend Lease

Bovis Lend Lease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, no claim of notability, and yet my speedy tag was removed. The maintenance tag has been on it for a week. Corvus cornixtalk 03:16, 8 April 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 CSD A7. Non-admin closure. BoL (Talk) 03:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High 5's All Round

AfDs for this article:
High 5's All Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. No releases, tours or awards listed. No significant third party coverage. Nv8200p talk 02:57, 8 April 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. Singularity 08:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The matrix online (story)

The matrix online (story) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A chapter-by-chapter plot summary of the online game The Matrix Online. While the game itself seems to be notable, this seems to be a overly long summary that falls under Wikipedia is a not an archive of plot summaries. I'd suggest a merge to a plot sub-section of The Matrix Online, but compressing this article to an acceptable length would essentially amount starting from scratch. Also, prod declined by author. Bfigura (talk) 02:47, 8 April 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. Singularity 08:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Constant Outsider

The Constant Outsider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Yet-unreleased book of unclear notability. "The Constant Outsider" Cirignano google search results only in this Wikipedia article. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:41, 8 April 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 a7, no assertion that this org. is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Rescue

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

non-notable small EMS service with only 4 ambulances. Completely fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG Drdisque (talk) 02:33, 8 April 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. Singularity 08:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbidding Mourning EP

Forbidding Mourning EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band is CSD as non-notable, so I'm putting this for AFD. asenine t/c 01:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most definitely; with the band article gone, that article is the account's only edit. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:27, 8 April 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 --JForget 23:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Delgado (Without a Trace)

AfDs for this article:
Elena Delgado (Without a Trace) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable outside of main article. asenine t/c 01:46, 8 April 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 Withdrawn by nominator. —Travistalk 02:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hall

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

Highly doubtful notability (does not qualify for speedy deletion, as the article asserts notability —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD was nominated in error. —  scetoaux (T|C) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted per A1. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garradors

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

Was nominated for deletion by User:Asenine but Twinkle never finished the nomination. The page's creator vandalized the unfinished AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted per A1. seicer | talk | contribs 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Sisters

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

Non-notable game boss. asenine t/c 01:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted (A7, no assertion of notability) Nonadmin close Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OVerus

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

I get only four hits. asenine t/c 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is non-notable.

asenine t/c 09:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Reason for deletion is unclear. Where does "I get only four hits" fall in the Wikipedia "reasons for deletion" guidelines?
  • OVerus ~ The Christian Business Emblem is the trademark of a registered United States business, and an emerging Christian presence in both national and international markets. Forthwith, an immediate AfD nomination is a bit extreme.
  • Wikiquette - WP editors must have courtesy for other productive editors and give them more than 30 seconds after creating an article before attempting to delete one of their newest articles; thanks. Kmiklas (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmiklas (talk) 04:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment; your problem is not incompleteness. It's that it appears actively non-notable; a trademark that hasn't been formally registered, for a program invented this year that has one product lined up that's not itself notable. You don't need images; you need an article in the Wall Street Journal or the like that proves that someone has taken note of this. I'd speedy it; if you had that, you'd have shown us. If it's not speeded, I suggest you skip the images and go straight to showing us why this notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ref. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmiklas (talk • contribs) 03:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep It appears to be blatant spam for sure, but it has only been up for a couple of hours. Give it 48 hours and tag it again. If it weren't so new, I'd support the speedy delete. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If an article is spam, then it does not deserve 48 hours, or 24 hours. There is no assertion of notability. No evidence of any third party coverage. The article is written like a press release or an advert. This is a PR campaign masquerading as an article. No, it doesn't deserve any extra time. It's not tagged speedy anyway, so why the "speedy keep" endorsement? The nomination isn't in violation of standard procedures. DarkAudit (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm with Jeremy; nominating an article for deletion ninety seconds after creation is obnoxious and borderline process abuse. No bloody kidding it lacks an assertion of notability, or doesn't read like the way an article should; the author hasn't had the time yet to do it up properly. Honestly, are there prizes being awarded by the Wikimedia Foundation for being the one to AfD the most articles in a given week?  RGTraynor  15:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Articles are deleted all the time within moments of their creation. This is not the OU symbol we are talking about here. Secondly, you have not actually given a reason for keeping the article other than "it was just posted" — and you have done so in a quite uncivil manner. ... discospinster talk 15:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: And obviously blatant attack articles or obscenity-riddled nonsense rightfully should be deleted as soon as possible. Which of these is this?  RGTraynor  15:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Reply It wasn't tagged speedy when I got here, and it still reads like spam 14 hours later. It's in AfD now, which is supposed to run for five days. That's plenty of time. So what's the problem? DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stated it. No one will compel you to agree with me, but "nominating an article for deletion ninety seconds after creation is obnoxious and borderline process abuse" seems clear enough to me.  RGTraynor  15:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction to that is, "then what's the use of the New Page Patrol?" but I'll save that debate for another time. It's lunchtime on the US East Coast, and it still looks like PR spam to me. The most glaring example is the entire "Benefits" section. Totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the New Page Patrol is to vette new articles, of course, and take appropriate action. I don't believe appropriate action encompasses filing for AfD within moments of creation, period, ever, and if you want more evidence as to the limitations of the approach, take a look at this Afd of the nom's, also made today: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tan_Crone. There's nothing about the NPP preventing them from giving new articles a couple days before doing so. Of course, that's a debate more properly made elsewhere.  RGTraynor  16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one's a little more obvious. If I'd found this article in the condition it was in (and still is many hours later), I may not have instantly speedied, but I would still look at it as spam. One minute later, twelve hours later, it's still as spammy then as it is now. Spam is spam. It doesn't deserve to live. Author has had adequate time to show that it is not. DarkAudit (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: Thank you all for your input, it has been very helpful in the editing process. As the world's first Christian business emblem and certification process, OVerus is a valuable addition to Wikipedia. The four tags currently assigned to the page are advertisement, conflict of interest, notability, and unreferenced. The article will be edited within seventy-two hours to address these four assertions individually.

Kmiklas (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You had better move faster than that. It's been two days already, and there is still no assertion of notability in the article, much less any sign of reliable, verifiable, and independent coverage, or even any coverage whatsoever. Mere existence is not enough to justify a Wikipedia entry. Your claim of having to contact your lawyers before work could continue on the article is dubious at best. There is no reason that this would be necessary. DarkAudit (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None whatsoever, This isn't a matter of trade or service marking. It's a matter of reliable sources, and either they exist or they do not. Whether this outfit's been written up in a magazine or a newspaper has nothing to do with attorneys, and proper sourcing takes much less fuss than racking up billable hours.  RGTraynor  17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progress Boldly marked - Edit 1 against "Advertising" claim is in progress. A partial edit has been posted to show good faith. "I. Advertisement" above has also been updated to reflect this change. Kmiklas (talk) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this is not true progress. You have still not answered the core question: "is it notable?" You have yet to show us that it is, or that anyone else independent of you thinks that it is. You also have not answered another key question. Why do you deem it necessary to consult with your attorneys regarding the content of this article? DarkAudit (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Boldly marked - Please reference the following sites regarding notability for OVerus:

1. Rachel's Vineyard: http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/support/support.htm
2. Adopt Need: http://www.adoptneed.com/
Kmiklas (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: I really strongly urge you to review WP:RS for an understanding of what Wikipedia considers valid sources. "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."  RGTraynor  01:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retagged A7 Speedy Author has refused to answer the questions presented to him when given more than adequate time to do so. Still no assertion of notability at all, which is grounds for an A7 CSD. Author has refused to explain why he saw the need to consult with attorneys before editing the article. That defies explanation, and makes the assumption of good faith difficult to maintain. DarkAudit (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Again, thank you for your comments and suggestions. In closing this discussion, please clarify a few points:

1. For the record, the trademark attorney was consulted based on this comment by Prosfilaes, "for a trademark that hasn't been formally registered." Registration is in progress and we sought to provide specific information in the article.
2. Why was the article deleted so fast when according to Wikipedia policy articles receive a minimum of five days, and editing was clearly in progress?
3. Am I correct in understanding that the two referenced sites did not meet notability guidelines per WP:RS
4. Most importantly, what needs to be accomplished before OVerus can be included in Wikipedia? Prosfilaes stated, "you need an article in the Wall Street Journal or the like that proves that someone has taken note of this." Is that the bottom line? Media attention?
5. Is there a Wikipedia forum to have articles evaluated before they are posted?
Kmiklas (talk) 05:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I tagged it, but I'm not the one who pulled the trigger. The closing admin should come by to explain why they concurred with the tag. Media attention is definitely key to establishing notability, but my concern was that the article didn't even assert notability. It only has to go a little bit past "Hey, it's notable!" to avert a speedy deletion. A claim will get you that past that hurdle, but once a claim is made, you need to back it up with proper sourcing. DarkAudit (talk) 05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps this can be closed, and remaining questions can be discussed on the authors talk page? (Given that the deletion has occured?) I'm trying to answer his questions there now. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A couple more things:

6. Where can I obtain copies of my articles? I posted two, one for "OVerus" and another for "The OVerus Organization."
7. Everyone's comments were very helpful. I've actually heard a similar message from newspapers that I've contacted. They've told me that "there's not a story yet." This effort has given me a very clear direction. Thank you for your patience this was my first try at an article.
Kmiklas (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to your talk page to keep it all in one place. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 06:01, 10 April 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 Boldly redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Handcannon

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

Non-notable game weapon. Merge into main article, perhaps? asenine t/c 01:36, 8 April 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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7 by Alexf (talk · contribs) (non-admin close). PeterSymonds | talk 10:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Torres

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

Assertions of notability null, as the articles appear to not exist (as far as I can see). Also, myspace friends does not make someone notable. asenine t/c 01:34, 8 April 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. Blueboy96 13:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DK's Treetop Temple

A board from the Mario Party series does not deserve its own article. I'm a fan of the series, but I still think this board does not deserve its own article. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 01:30, 8 April 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. In the five days since this debate opened, no attempt was made to improve the article. As written, it failed WP:MUSIC by a city mile. Blueboy96 13:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil J & Boi Payton

AfDs for this article:
Lil J & Boi Payton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I don't see any assertion compatible with WP:BAND. asenine t/c 01:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOWBALL / premature nomination. Non-admin close Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Crone

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

Does not seem notable via WP:BIO/WP:BAND. asenine t/c 01:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - It's a "she" (it seems you didn't even read up enough on this individual to find out her gender?), and they're all on major classical labels--CBS, Deutsche Grammophon, Etcetera (a Dutch independent classical label), Unicorn, Thorofon, etc., except for the most recent release. It seems you didn't look up these labels either, just guessed (hoped?) they were released under her own label (they weren't). You can't have it both ways; the musician either meets our notability guidelines (she does, with over a dozen prominent recordings, on major classical labels, recorded with major classical vocal artists) or she doesn't (she does). Badagnani (talk) 06:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're linking to the wrong CBS records. The album she released through CBS came out in 1980 through the original Columbia Records and not the CBS records revived in 2006. So that means two albums released through a major label (Columbia & DG) and several more through independent labels. --Bardin (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blatantly Obvious Keep - Notable enough per criteria no. 5 for notability of a band or performer: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Etcetera is a fairly well-known independent classical label that was established in the 1980s. They have released albums featuring many notable artists including the Arditti Quartet, Edo de Waart, Bernard Haitink, the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra, the London Sinfonietta and numerous others. If you do not know any of these names that I have just mentioned, then you're obviously not familiar with classical music. Clearly, Etcetera qualifies as an important indpendent label despite the absence of an article on wikipedia. I have never heard of this Tan Crone before now but she has evidently released many albums on this important independent label. Therefore, she is notable enough to merit an article on wikipedia per the guidelines. --Bardin (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bardin. --Kleinzach (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to Asenine's assertion, Crone satisfies (at least) WP:MUS criteria 5 and 8. Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As are many up for AfD, this was nominated three minutes after article creation. Give it time. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Nom seems to be in some manner of race, and has nominated a slew of articles for AfD moments after creation, well before the editors involved have had much chance to develop them. The obvious notability of this particular subject demonstrates the flaws in being in far too much of a rush to reload the New Articles page in time for the next AfD to actually bother to research claims or notability before nominating.  RGTraynor  15:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not familiar with the artist, but the article indicates that she has performed and recorded on respected labels as an accompanist for respected musicians. She certainly seems no less notable than other classical artists not in the "household name" category who have articles in Wikipedia, including some about whom I've written myself; to my way of thinking, at least in the world of classical music, "notable" and "superstar" are not synonymous. Drhoehl (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC handily, and the edit history makes it clear this would have been patently obvious if the nominator had waited even a couple hours after article creation instead of 3 minutes before nominating. If you have a notability concern with a new article, tag it with {{notability}} and if it isn't addressed in a reasonable amount of time, then nominate it. AfD is clogged up enough, without adding hastily what need not have. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, passes WP:MUSIC given recent edits. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyvio of http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/white-rhinoceros.html . -- Longhair\talk 05:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino facts

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

Nothing that can't be found at the Rhino article. asenine t/c 01:09, 8 April 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queeny Love

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

Appears to be a trimmed copyvio from http://www.officialpornstar.com/2007/09/queeny-love.html (particularly the third WP paragraph) and http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1481713/ (the filmography). When looking at the page history, some of the copyrighted text was removed. User deleted my CSD tag without adding hangon. (EhJJ)TALK 01:06, 8 April 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. Singularity 08:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signamercial

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

Neologism. Admittedly, invented by (new) user User:Michael randrup (see [30]), who is the sole editor of this article (apart from somebody placing tags). Google returns a cool total of 0 (zero) hits on "signamercial" or any variant spellings of same (apparently, it hasn't yet picked this article). Needless to say, no sources absolutely. Henrik Ebeltoft (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete The author invented the word, and therefore it's nonsense (G1). Proof of this is a google search, which returns only the Wikipedia article PeterSymonds | talk 05:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That doesn't mean it's patent nonsense per our speedy deletion criteria. In any case the concept treated in this article (beyond the obvious protologism) is something like 'Email Signature Marketing'. The current is just a personal essay, though. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand me. Obviously if it was a notable word, there would be conflict of interest, but it may warrant an article. However, it's not; it's a nonsense page because the word doesn't exist at all. PeterSymonds | talk 13:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or you misunderstand Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. In any case we don't write articles on words but on topics. And while the article's creator has done his share to cloud it, all commenters above seem to disregard Wikipedia:NEO#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms and that the topic of this article is "structured advertising/marketing used by organizations in outgoing emails - typically below the sender's signature." I could just move it to e.g. Email signature marketing and edit the neologism away, if the draft was worth it, had some sources and I was interested, but I just came here because of the speedy tag. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair dos, my mistake. I was thinking that it must be nonsense because it was completely made up. Sorry for the trouble. PeterSymonds | talk 14:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No sweat. The title and word are made up and our notion of nonsense is more narrow than the common one. Now that I look, there are actually quite some hits on the topic. [31]. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:14, 9 April 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. Singularity 08:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1349 Woking Squadron

1349 Woking Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. Expired PROD which was nominated with "This article is unsourced, seems to have little or no notability which i have specific understanding of given i am a member of the corps, contains information which is highly inaccurate, and seems to be mainly about advertising." This is borderline, and so I bring it here. I have no opinion. Black Kite 00:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment After looking at the 22 results, 3 are to wikipedia, 3 are to pages completely unrelated, 2 links are for a fund raising website which only has the squadron listed in a drop down menu and one link to another fundraising website which again is just from a list and one link is to a bebo account. That leaves 12 links which are directly related to the squadron. 3 are from the squadrons own website, 3 are simply advertisements, 1 is from a list of squadrons on the ATC website, and 2 are from similar lists from squadron websites, one is from a gliding squadron about a gilding allocation the squadron has and the last 2 are from a newsletter only at wing level. to me that doesnt seem to assert notability. A similar search on google does not provide any better sources. Seddon69 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 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. Singularity 08:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Frederick Wellesley

Lord Frederick Wellesley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completing unfinished nom for Cmprince (talk · contribs), apparently Twinkle messed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, relatives of notable people are not of themselves notable. Cmprince (talk) 00:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As someone whose general area is royalty and nobility, I don't see the need to create an article for every individual in the peerage, which seems to be quite a trend. Though life peers are generally notable, younger children of hereditary peers rarely are. PeterSymonds | talk 05:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He's in the interesting situation of being in line to a dukedom through his father, and in line to the throne through his mother, but interesting does not mean notable. StAnselm (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_8&oldid=204236247"