Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 8

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk | contribs) at 08:16, 8 March 2008 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feelthefunk.com. using TW). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< March 7 March 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 speedy delete under criterion G7: article failed to assert notability or provide reliable sources. It may also have had advertising/conflict of interest issues. —C.Fred (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feelthefunk.com

Feelthefunk.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:16, 8 March 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 conditional keep, if no reliable sources are added within a reasonable amount of time, you may nominate this article for deletion again. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart Alexander (politician)

Stewart Alexander (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails BLP, N, V, and appears to be OR. Article has had time to gain notability and proper referencing for living bio. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree that Delete sounds like the proper course of action. However I think it would be best if time was allowed for major conributors or the articles creater to edit the page. A simple google search brings up several things like votebrianmoore.com which mentions Alexander as a vice president nominee, however most sources I looked at weren't what I would call reliable sources. -Jahnx (talk) 08:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:BIO states in the category that includes politicians: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included." So that would be bad analysis. KV(Talk) 20:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Do I have to go through this every time a politician comes up for AfD? There is no claim to notability in the article that qualifies under BIO general criteria. His "claim" to notability would thus fall under BIO#POLITICIANS and he fails to meet any of those criteria. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - As soon as I finish his biography, it will be seen that he is more notable. The provision also has a clear intent to keep out candidates in local and minor figures in statewide elections. There is precedent from various minor party presidential and vice presidential figures having pages, with less citation than is on there now. I think it is clear that the article needs to be worked on, but deletion is unneccessary and was brought up before discussion was brought up on the talk page which is just bad Wikiquette. KV(Talk) 21:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX to that. Show BIO criteria and I will be happy to change my opinion. You have plenty of time before the AfD closes, and I have this on my watchlist. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - That is an essay, not policy, and I still think precedent is important in this matter. I'm also not basing my argument completely upon this. I am, however, bringing it up as a point because the Wikipedia community has established standards through precedent, often exercised as "common law," which is more or less the basis of all Wikipedia policy. In that light, I think WP:IAR very well may be applicable in this situation. KV(Talk) 21:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - <This makes no sense at all. Stewart Alexander is the current vice presidential candidate of a national FEC-recognized party who will appear on ballots across the country. His information is all over the internet, including the Socialist Party USA website (www.sp-usa.org, the SP Campaign Clearinghouse Website (votesocialist.org) and a new website for the Moore-Alexander campaign is currently being created by the SP at (socialist2008.org. Even every past SP Vice Presidential candidate has a wikipedia article. How could one justify deleting the article on the current vice presidential candidate?> 99.149.249.213 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)Matt[reply]
  • Keep per 99.149.249.213, and cleanup. There are enough third-party sources out there, as mentioned above, but the recent expansion relies too much on Alexander's autobiography at stewartalexandercares.com for me to be happy with it. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 13:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks, I meant to add all this today, but you beat me to it. Mstuczynski (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related Discussion

Do not comment here, this section is for related discussion that was not placed on the AfD page so as to give a fuller picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Vegita (talk • contribs) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stewart Alexander (politician)

This discussion is from User_talk:Mstuczynski

I added OR and V to the nomination because its suspect since the creator has a personal bias toward the rticle in question. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web site in question does not constitute as a reliable second party source (secondary source). Especially since there are topics on the page that do not discuss his political carrer. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. It confirms the first sentence of the article. The rest is about his life, and unverifiable. This is the difficulty in creating biographies while the person is living. If you dont wish to respond, you dont have to. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Stewart Alexander (politician)

This is from User_talk:SynergeticMaggot

While I sympathise with your position on this matter, this article is properly referenced by reliable sources e.g. Socialist Party USA website and is thus neither OR nor unverifiable. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why I am responding, but the article claims he is the Socialist Party USA V.P. candidate and their website confirms it. I do not know why that is not a reliable source. Mstuczynski (talk) 10:42, 8 March 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 00:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mobikade

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

Non notable website. Alexa rank 1,527,396. Asoed (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are no offline sources to verify the article, so how do you suggest notability is determined for this page? Cloudz679 (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply here is a online link to Mobile Entertainment, UK an Feb 19, 2008 article. That is in addition the the independent websites listed as references in the article. So it meets the critera. Which would fullfill the critera 1 or 3. It doesn't have to be an offline source. However if you want to argue the 2nd critera The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization then you have an arguement, however it only has to accomplish one of these criteras. -Jahnx (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per CSD A7. Rudget (?) 10:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gearcult

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

Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:57, 8 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lo2a

Lo2a (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:54, 8 March 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. As for Sellaband, nothing. That just isn't the one being discussed here. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nvohk

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

Non notable website Asoed (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, notability isn't established. Article uses references from the website it is about. Failing Independent sources. No other notability is pressumed -Jahnx (talk) 09:03, 8 March 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

Emmanuel Gospel Center

speedy delete - tagged copyvio. Non-admin closure. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Gospel Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spammy page on non-notable local religious organization. Noble Sponge (talk) 06:39, 8 March 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. 山本一郎 (会話) 04:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Street

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

There is no reason to believe that the content is worthy of notice. There might be many different Peel streets other than this one. Jpdemers (talk) 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The street is historical rich. It is part of early street markets in Hong Kong. It come to more attention when Urban Renewal Council started a re-development project around Peel Street and Graham Street. source There is an indigenous temple in the middle of the street that is the heritage of early Chinese population in the area. --— HenryLi (Talk) 11:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is in Central, one of the first areas developed in the territory. It has a deep history like Henry suggested above. Whether we get to it anytime soon, probably not. But worth keeping. Benjwong (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going to trust that given the history of the area, there will be sources to prove notability. EJF (talk) 17:23, 13 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tefosav

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

No evidence of RS coverage to indicate they pass either WP:CORP or WP:MUSIC (I think it could fall under either). In the ghits I see forum posts, blogs and download links. I don't see any evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I also checked Google Books and Google Scholar; no hits. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: article creator is currently blocked and since he cannot comment here he has made his case for keep on his talk page. I'm not certain as to the policy of linking to a blocked user's comments, so please feel free to rv me if this should not be linked here. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 07:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable spam. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and Orange Mike. JohnCD (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please look at my talk page and provide feedback on my discussion prior to any actions. There is a bigger issue here that simple allegations of "spam" are sufficient "rationalizations" for deletion. I would also like to address OrangeMike in his assertion that no references were found in Google Books or Google scholar as the subject is not related to either books or scholarly publications. I find it silly that he would even make mention of either of these resources to begin with. The problem seems to be in the defined acceptance of Notability and it's broad scope. There is currently debate on the subject of Notability that I believe an article such as TEFOSAV is too easily falling into a gap which makes it's inclusion on wikipedia difficult despite it's relevance . How do you record a notable phenomenon that is not generally notable in both traditional and arbitrarily defined "reliable sources"? Just because the subject is not part of "popular" discussion within easy reach of a google search, does not mean that it is not notable in a more general definition of the word. Given time, it is possible that such defined notability will be obtain in some fashion but only through the combined efforts of the community at large. Also, this is not some simple case of obvious self presentation, as I am not in any way related to the organization in question. In fact, said organization only exists in a historical perspective and that accusations that it is in some way trying to profit in some fashion from inclusion in wikipedia is debatable. As I have tried to make perfectly clear on my own talk page about this topic, this exercise is entirely academic in scope. It is my belief that any rationalizations for deletions should address those statements prior to any actions by the administrators. Finally, I would like to point out that those users making recommendations do not maintain any level of expertise on the subject matter and should refrain from making any uninformed comments regarding its inclusion in this discussion without making a reasonable attempt to educate themselves in it. Only through intelligent discussion can an understanding of the subject matter be obtain and that their "shoot first, ask questions" methodology be called into question. Zenasprime (talk) 16:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Tefosav different then 12k? Is it 12k/LINE: Zen and the Art of the Drum Machine (Originally published in The Wire, 218)? or Stylus Magazine: Label Profile ? or maybe these Taylor Deupree interview / Blueprints compilation review ? Oh wait, those links are dead! But if anyone is interested I have the actual hardcopy, the paper and ink variety, in my personal library if anyone would like to see them. Incidentally, I have copies of Goove magazine which, while not present in any searchable format here on the internet, contain article relevant to Tefosav. Anyway, my question remains, what makes these two articles difference in terms of notability? Is there some understanding that 12k is more popular that keeps it from deletion that tefosav does not? Why is it that 12k can maintain it's presence simply because Taylor is a better promoter then the organizers of Tefosav? It's not like we do not all know of each other within this circle and if individually asked about the other, we would conclude that they were of similar note, relatively speaking. I don't mean to harp on the subject but this all seems to be of a significant level of subjectivity that shouldn't be tolerated when it comes attached to such a draconian measures, but that's a conversation better served at different location. (note to Taylor, sorry for dragging you into this debate ;) ) Zenasprime (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should. I saw your comment on your talk page (it's best now that you're unblocked to keep the discussion here in one central place) about wanting to preserve an understanding of the music but that's not sufficient grounds for an article being notable per Wikipedia's standards. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might be misunderstanding what I am asking. I am not making a comparison to say that because one exist the other should as well. I am asking what makes one different then the other that make it notable while the other one is not. What I gather by the current definition of notability is that an article needs to assert it's notability through links that show it's relevance. The only thing that the 12k article has that the tefosav article does not are the links which I highlighted above. In fact, in creating the tefosav article I did a copy of the 12k text and used it as a template to create it. I am contending that the 12k article differs only in that it presents these links as evidence of it's notability, correct? If that is the case, then would links of a similar nature be enough to establish notability of the article? What I am ultimately questioning is that the establishment of notability, especially in this case, is HIGHLY subjective and that perhaps due to unique circumstances a more lenient degree of moderation should be considered such that the community could be given time to establish a similar degree of notability? Wikipedia is a community based effort, why not give the community time to perform its function? Or do I have the function of this website wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenasprime (talk • contribs) 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me ask this, if I am able to produce a bibliography style reference to an article on the subject of Tefosav that is contained in a magazine, such as grooves, and cited that reference in the article, even though it would not be searchable on the internet, would that establish notability in this case? In other words, I can't provide a link to the resource but I can cite some outside article, obscure as it might be, is that enough to establish notability? Zenasprime (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
  • "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4]
  • "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]
A single article in a magazine obscure enough that it itself does not have an article here, would probably not suffice. Note that other articles have citations to a plurality of sources, not a single one. I do readily agree, however, that the availability or non-availability of a source publication on the Internet is totally irrelevant. I mentioned books and Google-Scholar results because such results may serve to show that the subject matter has been deemed of interest to serious students of the field. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you don't really do your research and are here just to be a jackass... grooves YOU are the problem, not the article. Instead of being a jackass, why don't you just answer my question about how to cite an in print source? Zenasprime (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also like to add that this entire process is chuck full of subjectivity simply because of all the other articles available on wikipedia that do not meet the criteria you have just so kindly pasted up for my amusement. This entire process is subject to asshattery the likes of which only the internet can provide. Wikipedia is a joke precisely because of administrators like OrangeMike. Have fun with your increasingly irrelevant pet project. Zenasprime (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't wikify the word, I didn't know you meant that was the name of an actual publication. Ignoring your insults, I will offer the following link: WP:CITE to our procedures for citing articles. I usually recommend a pretty basic style, thus: <ref>Smith, John. "Tefosav and Electronic Music: Innovation Online" ''[[Grooves]]'' #202 (Jan. 2007), p. 102</rev>. Make sure to create a "References" section on the bottom of the article, so the reference shows properly.--Orange Mike | Talk 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it walks and quacks.... anyway, why don't you put this in my userspace until such time as I am able to go through my library to find the relevant sources, as it seems as if you administrators don't really give the community the necessary time to do the job with which it's been tasked to do. I don't have the amount of time, as you seem to do, to lord over wikipedia to make sure that my articles aren't deleted by the over zealous staff. Thanks Zenasprime (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like somebody to help you set up what we call "sandboxes" where you can work on revised versions of this or other articles, with citations and the rest of the expected article infrastructure? You could then invite other editors to examine the re-written versions before posting them to mainspace. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has everyone just given up on this discussion and moved on to more easily delete-able content? Seriously, is the article just going to remain in deletion limbo because the admins responsible for putting it there couldn't logically argue their own position or support their policy in any reasonable fashion? Zenasprime (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I'm not an admin and I made a valid case for deletion. AfDs normally run for five days, and this will run until a consensus is decided. May I remind you of WP:NPA and WP:COI, both of which you've been cautioned about before. Any citations need to come from reliable sources and for the nth time, WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid keep reason. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again with WP:OTHERCRAP is misguided in this respect. Other crap is important because it clearly shows that there is a Double_standard that exists when ALL things are equal otherwise. AGAIN this isn't a case where policy is in question but it's interpretation by the powers that be.
  • Just so it's clear, I by no means agree to this deletion. It's my position that the community should be given a significant time period through which the necessary source could eventually be added. I in no way support the use of CSD-A7 and firmly believe that the potential for abuse, either deliberate or through ignorance, make this policy more destructive then was it's original intent. Wikipedia should not seek to replace it's hardcopy counterpart by seeking to emulate it's outdated ideological foundation for inclusion, but rather shoudl surplant it through the inclusion of all topics of variable relevance and notiblity as determined by an entire worlds effort. The technology exists for this to be possible, let us use it! Zenasprime (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though the article needs work on the references, I feel that there is enough to presume that this isn't a hoax and that Tefosav really did exist as the first paragraph of Tefesav states.
The group seems worthy of note to me because, though short lived, it is somewhat of a phenomena that several presumably influential artists created a new, non-profit group for supporting digital media.
By the way, once and for all, just citing WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument. Citing other stuff as a reason for inclusion is a mechanism of providing consistency.
« D. Trebbien (talk) 01:49 2008 March 15 (UTC)
clarification and reply - The question has never been whether the subject existed; and whether it is noteworthy is a value judgment. The question is whether it is notable; and in that, the keep arguments have been weak. (And you seem to be misunderstanding something; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an acknowledgement that we're not perfect here, and some non-notable stuff has accreted; which doesn't constitute a license to put more non-notable stuff in, but rather an admonishment to remove the non-notable. We prefer to raise, not lower, our quality standards.) --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, what your deletionist attitude seems to miss is that given time, an article will develop the required notability through the collective effort of users. It appears that in it's current state, Wikipedia's policies on this matter are significantly in favor of the deletionist mentality. This is unfortunate given the intended design of Wikipedia as a collective effort. I understand the desire of Wikipedians, such as yourself, to maintain a higher level of respectability, but in the end, it's this kind of philosophy that will ultimately hold Wikipedia back as a useful tool to the public. Zenasprime (talk) 14:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try Orange Mike, but you are begging the question.
Also, I am not misunderstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at all. Did you notice this above: "Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should."? Connect this with the following text from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:

The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."

My point exactly.
« D. Trebbien (talk) 02:55 2008 March 15 (UTC)
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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kumudam Jothidam

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

No evidence of RS coverage and ghits in any language don't indicate any notability for this magazine. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 06:18, 8 March 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. No arguments were made by the keep comments that addressed the notability concerns, when we disregard the SPA. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic H Dustin

Frederic H Dustin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims to be the founder of a park in South Korea and to be the longest-lived foreign expatriate in Korea. However, searches on Yahoo turn up very little on him or on the park. Blueboy96 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was actually up for an A7 speedy, but I turned it down since it did assert notability. I would think, however, that the longest-lived foreign expatriate in Korea would get more coverage (37 Yahoo hits). Blueboy96 05:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah really - my searching turns up nothing. Could have proded it, but likely the IP would have removed that too. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think the article was up for A3 too, which was weird. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is this, but this article is certainly going to need some work if it is to survive. --UberScienceNerd Talk Contributions 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no real indication of personal notability, although the Jeju Maze seems to turn up in enough travel guides to be worth an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we have an example of [[this]]. Just because there won't be a ton of information found in English about a man who's accomplishments and life have been centred around South Korea does not mean that that person isn't important and notable in Korea. I added info and was going to bed but thought I'd better vote here just in case. I will add more when I can.--72.1.222.140 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - utterly non-notable. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man is utterly notable. He has many accomplishments to his name, including having been invited to the Blue House (South Korea's White House) as a representative of the foreign community of Jeju Island. His philanthropic work alone is worth noting. I started this page this morning but due to time limitations wasn't able to add much more than a few brief sentences. The idea is to continue adding to it as I get time, as well as invite those who have known him to contribute. Give it some time, and you'll see why Frederic H Dustin is most certainly worthy of a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jejujejujeju (talk • contribs) 08:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.--andreasegde (talk) 13:17, 8 March 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 improved artice, improved sourcing, and withdrawn nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indosphere

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

A pathetic little fringe theory that is used only on the Wikipedia and by James A. Matisoff, serving only the purpose of bolstering Indian patriotism. Greater India, Undivided India, Indies, Indianized kingdom and Indian subcontinent (there may be more of them) already serves that patriotic purpose more than adequately. Aditya(talk • contribs) 03:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted) In case we have failed to notice - I have withdrawn the nomination already (see below). From the look of things this meets notability guidelines perfectly. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree that this article needs a few major edits. As Aditya Kabir rightly points out, the term was indeed coined by James Matisoff, and this needs a mention in the article. The context in which the term is used in academic publications also needs to be mentioned more clearly. Although there's a dearth of linguists that work in this area, I would disagree that Matisoff's are the only publications to use the term, since many contemporary academics use the term as well (example.) deeptrivia (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly non-notable; template non-existent. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Greater India, the content may be worthwhile, but it should not be titled under a potentially controversial WP:NEOlogism. <eleland/talkedits> 14:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - deeptrivia's citation is not relevant. It's a resume, not a publication, it lists the term under "research interests," and it puts the term in scare quotes, implying a lack of agreement in the value of the term on Hildebrandt's part. If someone can find one citation in linguistics that does anything more than mention Matisoff uses the term, I will change my vote to agree with deeptrivia. Rikyu (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, having looked at the further citations provided by deeptrivia (thanks!), I lean toward severely edit, not delete. This seems a legitimate subject within the realm of linguistics, especially "areal linguistics." I note, though, that several of the sources deeptrivia found have a different definition of the Indosphere than Matisoff. He uses it strictly for "Indianized" portions of Southeast Asia, but most of the other sources use it mostly for South Asia plus Tibet and Burma. So we should note this discrepancy in the edited article. Rikyu (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that the language thing is not really about India (not even when we include Tibet and Burma). It's about a Sprachbund, which in itself is not a well established concept yet (I haven't been able to access the "areal linguistics" site as it requires a registration). In that case it becomes coat rack and quite unacceptable. The little that can be salvaged would only make fodder for some other article. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(continues from Deep's comment above) Wow! I must begin by saying that you must make some time some day to teach me civility. You are by far the most soothing person that I had a disagreement on the Wikipedia.
But, the article says nothing of aerial lingusitics, but rather goes on to expound on "Indian" influence on neighboring countries (very much WP:COAT or WP:SOAP). That coat rack is only emphasized by the existence of so many overlapping and repetitive articles on the "Indian influence" around — Greater India, Undivided India, Indies, Indianized kingdom and Indian subcontinent. On top of that, the Sprachbund is an internal concept of Areal linguistics, a subfield of a subfield of language studies, and even there the term seems to be loosely defined (either WP:FRINGE or WP:NEO).
Besides, what I have seen so far are a few sporadic mentions that hardly covers the "Significant coverage" part of the notability guidelines. Only one person, Matisoff, discusses it at any depth, and his influence may not be enough to keep the article. Though I am not counting out the possibility of applying the Heymann Standard yet, but in light of this and this talk pages I can't really see it happening. This concept doesn't look worthy for an entry. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seems to be non-trivial usage of the term (along with Sinosphere) in academic literature; for example
    • Articles by Matisoff (who introduced the term)
      • Sino-Tibetan Linguistics: Present State and Future Prospects, James A. Matisoff , Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 20. (1991), pp. 469-504.
      • On Megalocomparison, James A. Matisoff, Language, Vol. 66, No. 1. (Mar., 1990), pp. 106-120.
      • Protean Prosodies: Alfons Weidert's Tibeto-Burman Tonology, Review author[s]: James A. Matisoff , Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 114, No. 2. (Apr. - Jun., 1994), pp. 254-258.
      • Handbook of Proto-Tibeto-Burman: system and philosophy of Sino-Tibetan reconstruction. Matisoff J A (2003), University of California Press.
    • Other authors
      • Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast Asia, N.J. Enfield, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2005. 34:181–206
      • Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Robert M. W. Dixon, Oxford University Press.
      • The Sino-Tibetan Languages. Bauer R.S. and Matthews S.J., Cantonese, In: G. Thurgood & R.J. LaPolla (eds) London, UK, Routledge, 2003, 146-55.
      • Language variations: Papers on variation and change in the Sinosphere and in the Indosphere in honour of James A. Matisof. Bradley D., R. J. LaPolla, Boyd MICHAILOVSKY & G. Thurgood (eds), 2003, Canberra, Australian National University (Pacific Linguistics)
      • Areal Diffusion and Genetic Inheritance, Aleksandra Aĭkhenvalʹd, Robert M. W. Dixon, Oxford University Press.
    • Comment: While I feel there is more than sufficient coverage of this topic of areal linguistics to write an encyclopedic article, I also agree with Aditya's observation that the current article veers off-topic into geographic/political/nationalistic issues and hence can be seen as a WP:Coatrack, but remedying that is an issue for the article talk-page and not AFD. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a stab at reworking the article to provide it with appropriate subject context. Others, more knowledgeable in the area, are welcome to further expand the article and edit out any errors I may have introduced. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, Abecedare. I have further edited the article to remove all material that didn't appear to be directly relevant. deeptrivia (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done, people. I pulled the final external link from the page...some of the material on that page is ridiculously chauvinistic. Putting a garland of flowers around someone's neck is an "Indian" custom surviving in the Philippines? I'm sure that news will interest Hawaiians. And how, exactly, did they determine that 5% of the blood in Filipino veins is Indian? Not a reliable source, even if some of the information on the page is accidentally correct. Rikyu (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reduced indent) Resting my case. Nomination withdrawn. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 March 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. I've redirected to American Automobile Association. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, cited informaiton. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TripTik

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

Listing for AfD after {{prod}} removed with the unsubstantiated assertion that "TripTiks are not non-notable!". The article is unreferenced, and doesn't establish the notability of this commercial service (or is it a product?). Mikeblas (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge and Redirect to 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. I leave it more involved editors as so how best include the material (also, it's a sculpture, not a mural). Black Kite 18:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newborn Mural

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

Non-notable and poorly developed article. Qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS, as Wikipedia is not news. Was previously tagged with {{prod}}, but tag was removed with no changes to the article and no constructive discussion. Grsz 11 03:41, 8 March 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 as unsourced original research. Orange Mike | Talk 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent protagonist

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

This article survived an AfD in September 2007. At the time, the main complaint was that it had no sources, and appeared to be original research. 18 months later, this is still true: there is not a single secondary source in the article, and it is composed entirely of original research. Essentially, the article consists of nothing more than an extended list of examples of things -- mostly videogames -- that Wikipedia editors believe contain "silent protagonists." This is original research in the extreme. The term "silent protagonist" does come up in searches of scholarly literature (this came up in the last AfD), but is generally being used descriptively, not as a term of art. In other words, there's no apparent connection between the uses cited in the previous AfD and the topic of this aticle ("My favorite videogames that have characters without dialogue"). This article has had more than enough time for some reliable source to have been found. None have been forthcoming. None will be forthcoming. We should delete this as original research. Nandesuka (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sometimes, people mistakes AfD for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it, but the deletion is very extreme solution. I think that "silent protagonist is video game object" is not problem. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Perfectly encyclopaedic. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. Google scholar link plus things like this attest a good article is possible. User:Krator (t c) 12:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you even read the "Google scholar" link? Which of the books in which the words "silent" and "protagonist" happen to appear do you contend support the text in this article, which has nothing at all to do with any of those sources? Even a cursory examination of that search demonstrates that its connection with the claimed topic of this article approximates zero. Nandesuka (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The question is whether an article can be writen about the topic silent protagonist — not whether the sources from Google scholar directly support the information currently in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My question stands. Which of the links in that search do you contend support an article on the topic "silent protagonist", as distinguished from articles that happen, by coincidence, to contain the words "silent protagonist"? Nandesuka (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources on the talk page are a good starting point. --Pixelface (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Did you understand the Scholar link? I think I'm pretty up to date on critical parlance, and this isn't an entry at all. "Silent protagonist" is not a genre. In fiction, it's not possible, as a limited 3rd POV would usually provide thoughts, and if there are neither thoughts nor words, then it's not the protagonist (please look that up). This article is pure OR and fan stuff. There is no salient critical distinction, no contextual illumination, no shared attributes, just a list of what the authors think. Geogre (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but get rid of all the bogosity. It's plainly a widely used and agreed upon term about computer gaming. Reference to it outside that context seems entirely the product of someone's pretensions. Mangoe (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So if it's "widely used" it should be easy to come up with some reliable sources, right? Where are they? Nandesuka (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dunno-- try the links on this page. It's obvious that we cannot expect conventional academic references for something like this. Mangoe (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mangoe, the links on that page are to previous versions of this very Wikipedia article. Can you seriously not see the problem here? We have thousands upon thousands of articles on video-game related topics that do refer to reliable sources. I fail to see why this one is so special that we should ignore our core content policies Nandesuka (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no secondary sources. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far from providing a reason to keep the article, the Google Scholar/Books hits actually show that the term isn't used to mean anything more than the sum of its parts. The article is unsalvageable original research. EALacey (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Cleanup - this is an important device, commonly used in many games such as Bioshock, Halo and Half-Life. Although the term itself isn't as commonly used, I was able to dig out some opinion columns such as Gamernode, /kill-the-silent-protagonist-325121.php Kotaku and a guest article on Gamasutra. I've also managed to locate some fanbased uses as this animation series at Newgrounds and this promoted [4] article at Destructid. While the term is not in everyday parlance, I am sure that the article can be cleaned up to remove the POV and OR and make this an an article on an obvious subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazimoff (talk • contribs) 16:36, 14 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donbas secessionism

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

The article is pure WP:OR. Virtually no text, just the maps, no sources to support the topic per WP:SOURCE and WP:V. The lonely, non-academic, Radio Free Europe source from 2004 (!) does not even mention secessionism as a phenomenon. Hillock65 (talk) 02:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for such an unprofessional start. It'll be extended soon. --Riwnodennyk ✉ 03:59, 8 March 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 consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivorous alga

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

The article Carnivorous alga was moved to Predatory dinoflagellate, and when Tameeria, creator of the article, contested the move, there was a vote, in which it was decided that the article should remain at Predatory dinoflagellate. However, Tameeria has recently recreated the old page Carnivorous alga with nearly the same content in what I believe to be an effort to circumvent the page-move, which I would call content forking. Therefore, given the consensus established in the above mentioned discussion, it is self-evident that Carnivorous alga is a superfluous article conceived under questionable circumstances, warranting deletion. ♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, then... —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At present the content, scope, references and intended readership of these two articles are quite distinct. They may have had nearly the same content at one point (Sorry but I really can't be bothered to trawl through the histories to find out as it's the articles in their present form that's the question) but they certainly don't have now. Carnivorous alga is describing the media use of the phrase "Carnivorous algae" or "predatory algae" while Predatory dinoflagellate is a scientific article about a specific group of organisms. (I would suggest that as Carnivorous alga is intended for a more general readership the lead sentence should be more accessible ("mixotrophic protists"?), but that's off-topic for this forum). In any case, we seem to be discussing whether or not to merge not an article for deletion. Qwfp (talk) 11:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the information about media responses and appearances in fiction back into Predatory dinoflagellate, and redirect. Deor (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to/with Predatory dinoflagellate. --Reinoutr (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, obviously. Mangoe (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WTF?!? First of all, I am very, very disappointed how this is being handled. Here's why:
    • "Carnivorous algae" was a requested article. The article was requested on 2 June 2006 (diff). It stayed on the requested article list until 2 April 2007 (diff). It was probably taken off because it was no longer a red-link since I had created a redirect for it when I first stumbled over it.
    • When I got around to putting an article up for it, there were some concerns regarding the content and comments accusing the term "carnivorous algae" of being "comic bookish" and the article being "recklessly written." Whatever happened to "assume good faith" here? Vlmastra proceeded to "gut" the article and renamed it without discussion what the new title should be based on a few unsourced and refutable blanket statements and personal preference. I happened to disagree with both the reasoning for the gutting and the new title.
1) Vlmastra's statement "a parasite is not a carnivore" can be refuted by scholarly literature which confirms that carnivorous parasites do exist.
2) The statement that "Ichthyophthirius multifiliis, Brooklynella hostilis, and Cryptocaryon irritansis are not algae" might be right, but upon removing that section Vlmastra stated it would be included in an article on parasitic algae or the algae article itself (diff), thus contradicting the very reason given for removing it in the first place.
3) Consensus did not exist for the move from "carnivorous alga" to "predatory dinoflagellate" as that was done single-handedly by Vlmastra without prior discussion of the new title.
4) The new title completely changed the intended scope of that article. "Predatory dinoflagellates" applies to more than half of all known dinoflagellate species, including so-called "grazers" that prey on other algae. There are only two "carnivorous" species in the Pfiesteria genus. Based on my research into the topic, 80-85% of the scholarly literature on predatory dinoflagellates deals with other species. Thus, having solely a scientific discussion of Pfiesteria under "predatory dinoflagellate" is putting undue weight on just one genus, plus it's a duplication of what is already in Wikipedia at Pfiesteria, Pfiesteria piscicida, and Pfiesteria shumwayae. I've tried to address the weight issue by including other species in the article, but in my opinion, "predatory dinoflagellate" should be merged into the dinoflagellate article as a subsection.
  • I've asked again and again during the whole move discussion what an article on "carnivorous algae" should look like since the whole discussion quite obviously was more a content dispute than anything else. My conclusion from that discussion was that an article on carnivorous algae probably should put more weight on discussing how the term was used in the media since it is not a scientific term. I thought there was consensus on splitting the article along these lines (see diff) so went ahead and rewrote the article in that sense. I have to say I am very disappointed with the reaction to my efforts and I am rather upset that I am now being back-stabbed for "content forking" when all I was trying to do was to follow along with what seemed to be a good compromise: split the content into discussion of the media term in one article and scientific discussion in another.
  • In summary, I vote keep, of course. If there is any merging, I would suggest merging it with Pfiesteria. Merging it back into "predatory dinoflagellate" would just recreate the undue weight problem. - tameeria (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and start a merge discussion. If the term "carnivorous algae" has been used (and was a requested article), the article should be a redirect at the very least. --Pixelface (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep possibly move to Carnivorous protists, which is the more general term and avoids the difficulty in defining "algae" in this context. Saying "predatory" is unsatisfactory since a protist grazing on bacteria is certainly predatory, but not close to the subject of the article - protists that consume animal flesh. The line between parasitic and predatory is also a fine one here, and for me would depend on if the protozoan carried out part of its life cycle in the animal it kills. If it does, it is a parasite, if it doesn't it is a predator. Redirecting this to a single species or genus would also be unsatisfactory, since I think the behavior is shared by several taxonomic groups. A very difficult decision though, I'm open to discussion on this. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 13 March 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. Keep comments did not address the issues of the article, which were based on policy and guideline. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Association of Missouri

Student Association of Missouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a defunct group of 12 delegates from assorted Missouri colleges to lobby Missouri government. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. Plenty of WP:Original Research. Would merge, but nothing to merge it to. RedShiftPA (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep' - This is an historical document that pertains to events that occurred in Missouri. This should remain a separate article. Information can be verified by contacting the colleges involved. Wiki should support historical records for future generations of college students and as the premier on-line encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.173.112 (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failure to assert notability. —TreasuryTag talk contribs 08:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I really doubt that "all students unions have inherent notability." 1) They are always local in scope, since they are connected to a particular campus. 2) They rarely (if ever) have an reliable third party coverage. 3) Once you delete all of the unverified, unencyclopedic, original researched material, all that remains is a stub. So, it just makes sense to merge the students unions into their main article. 4)WP:UNI's own standards call for students unions to be merged into the main article.--RedShiftPA (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Student life - Here is also a good place to mention ...students' union activities" (from Wikipedia:UNI#Structure)
Not to be defficult or anything, but before citing WP:NOT shouldn't you have checked to make sure it says that "Wikipedia has no deadline", whatever that means? Mangoe (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It used to list it there. You can also find it at WP:DEADLINE. GreenJoe 15:05, 10 March 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, G3 as an obvious hoax, per the author's admission that he made the "poster" for the movie. Blueboy96 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin and the Chipmunks 2

Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

made up film, the poster is actually a poster for the first film which someone has drawn "2" on see here. Fredrick day (talk) 02:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete No sources, poor construction. I googled "Alvin and the Chipmunks 2" and nothing informational came up. This might be a hoax. Brokenspirits (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yup. There does seem to be a sequel for the 2007 film Alvin and the Chipmunks planned, but it is still in the planning stages and has not been filmed yet, let alone ready for release in the summer. This is a hoax article.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are certainly rumors about a sequel, but there has been no announcement from 20th Century Fox or any of the other production companies. Prewitt81 (talk) 03:10, 8 March 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. Canley (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubisco (band)

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

Possibly Fails notabiltity CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:59, 8 March 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. Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thottbot

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

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and has been put up for deletion several times as no proof of notability has been presented or added to the article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the updates made since I last viewed the article. Gary King (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Pixelface. The deletion reason give boils down to "article needs improvement". Needing improvement isn't a valid deletion reason. Reliable sources can be added. That's a reason for an unreferenced or a refimprove tag, not an AfD. Having been put up for deletion multiple times isn't a valid deletion reason either. Unless a valid deletion reason is given, the article should be kept. Rray (talk) 23:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. There has not been, and is not now, any proof that this article has any notability. Google searches do not count, and there needs to be multiple reliable sources. If this material doesn't exist, there is no "cleanup", there is just deletion because articles need to be notable on wikipedia. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like the fact that this article was viewed 7,501 times in January 2008[8]? And WP:N says topics should be notable, not articles themselves. --Pixelface (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable, lots of sources. I question the judgement of all above editors who advocate deletion, and wonder if this amounts to anti-video game bias where objective standards (multiple reliable sources) clearly establish notability. I do not easily make allegations like this, too. User:Krator (t c) 12:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw- FINALLY, this article has established a limited degree of notability. At this point, we should talk about merging not deletion, unless Pixelface believes it can grow further. Great job! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malone House

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

Tried to CSD this but removed because hey, let's all waste our time with a residence hall. Entirely non-notable residence hall. delete. Fredrick day (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh and for any history buffs out there, this is a vintage 1992 building, pre-dates blu-ray. --Fredrick day (talk) 01:41, 8 March 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, no prejudice against proposing a merger to a list, but that's for the talkpages. No consensus to delete at this point. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode)

Girls Just Wanna Have Fun (Xena episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable episode of Xena: Warrior Princess that fails WP:EPISODE and WP:FICT. As per the arbcom injunction, AfD can proceed normally, but must wait for any actual deletion/merge/redirect (if that is the final choice) to be done after the injunction is lifted. Collectonian (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That list just has one sentence, Xena and Gabrielle join forces with Joxer and Orpheus to defeat Bacchus, who is transforming innocent girls into deadly monsters.. This is a pathetic summary of an episode which has received extensive coverage in secondary sources and which is especially notable in illustrating Xena and Gabrielle's lesbian relationship. It's a good example of how obsessive listification is quite wrong. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its the same once sentence used for the first synopsis on that article. I will conceded, however, that the Xena episode list is in pathetic shape, but that is not an excuse to create another article rather than actually fix the list. Collectonian (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A citation to note it is episode X or to confirm the plot does NOT establish notability. The "overt lesbian theme" is an aspect of the series as a whole and covered elsewhere. WP:FICT has been re-written, and the primary aspect in dispute at this point seems to be the issue of relocating the material that doesn't meet the guidelines and if Wikia should be mentioned. Collectonian (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added three cites for at least three sentences so it seems that you haven't read this article. The article that you want to merge it to has just one sentence about this topic and has no sources for this or any of the other episodes that it purports to cover. Your preference for a list format is contrary to our best practise which clearly favour prose articles over tabular laundry lists. Colonel Warden (talk)
  • I have read the three sourced sentences and skimmed over the rest of the article, so what I should have said is merge the one sourced nontrivial sentence and redirect the rest. Generally, I find it easier and faster to come up with three new sentences to expand the LoE than to read the article for 15 minutes to find three mergeable plot sentences. YMMV. – sgeureka t•c 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, one citation might be expected to support one paragraph in a good article. So, three citations, such as I provided, would support three paragraphs. sgeureka's proposition is to try to reduce the material down to sentences rather than paragraphs and this seems to be just so that he can cram it into a tabular form. Form would be dictating the content in a non-encyclopedic way and so this proposition seems contrary to our best practise. Wikipedia is not a Book of Lists. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One source confirms that this ep is is the fourth ep of this show (extremely trivial). One sentence confirms the premise of the episode (trivial, could have looked that up on IMDb). One sentence confirms a theme (nontrivial). The rest is originally research plot, which per WP:NOT#PLOT would be fine to some extend if there was significant analysis or other real-world content in the article. But there isn't. So we don't need 30 plot sentences (I haven't counted) to support one short theme sentence. So we can lose the 30 sentences. Voilà, the article is so stubby that it can fit in the LoE. Now, if this episode was nominated for/won a major award, or if the sources expanded a little bit on non-trivial things, I'd be happy to strike my recommendation, but until this happens, I see merge/redirection as the best option. No prejudice against article recreation if more (one or two medium paragraphs) non-trivial real-world information surfaces. – sgeureka t•c 09:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to demonstrate how deletion assists such content editing. Your proposal is contrary to normal practise in which stubby material is expanded and developed rather than contracted. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't propose for the content to be deleted; redirection allows for recreation. I am merely saying the current content is completely inappropriate, and should therefore be removed until the time comes that it actually serves to support real-world content, not the other way around. (See WP:FICT#Demonstrating notability for fictional topics and WP:WAF#Contextual presentation what is considered appropriate practise.) – sgeureka t•c 12:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic is notable, as the citations show. It is not indiscrimiate having a specific focus. Plot summary is absolutely essential as an article upon a fictional item wuld be absurd without it. Trivia is in the eye of the beholder and so that's just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is all your objections amount to. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just added another cite in the course of restoring material which Jack removed in ignorance of its significance. I haven't watched this episode myself but understand that the material should be treated with respect rather than contempt. And I find that it is not hard to explain, source and develop. It's disgraceful that nay-sayers should instead try to belittle and sabotage the article in pursuit of their hostile and negative agenda. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    mere trivia. --Jack Merridew 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aspiration of the original editor is unclear since they have not responded - we only seem to have the usual suspects here. Myself, I aspire to develop the article into a study of the episode's groundbreaking lesbianism and its effects upon the show's fans for which I've seen some promising material out there. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:43, 12 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Scientists Online Journal

Young Scientists Online Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable school magazine supported by charitable funding. great idea but just not notable (and sources presented are not RS or notable). Fredrick day (talk) 01:18, 8 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Golden Sun

List of characters in Golden Sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and covers material already in the two Golden Sun game articles. This material is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. It has been tagged for notability since November, and no attempt to establish any has been made, most likely because it doesn't have any. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 07:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a perfectly acceptable sub-article of the featured article Golden Sun, as well as the article Golden Sun: The Lost Age. It doesn't tell readers how to beat the game so it's not a game guide. --Pixelface (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Christopher Parham's arguments. Golden Sun is not simply "a book" or "a game", but an entire setting with multiple games, and having the characters together in a merged list like this is appropriate coverage of this universe. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The content of this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT and should be transcribed to a suitable fansite as it falls outside the scope of Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think this article fails the relevant guidelines (Previous versions of WP:FICT that still have consensus, WP:N, WP:GAMECRUFT). The above users fail to establish why this is the case though, so I will be a little more elaborative in the hope I can express some of the argumentation that is tacitly assumed by most of the above comments that advocate deletion.
    The platform of the game makes it less likely a character list is needed. Gameboy games have no voice acting, and the limited space available makes story telling in general a lot harder. Only very few characters on this list are actually part of the main story, and only those can be kept with a rationale that they would be essential to good coverage of the game. The characters in 'other major characters' are really just minor when I read their description, and should be removed even if this article is kept along with the minor characters.
    Character lists are usually spinouts from the original articles, but all the character information here could be summarised in those main articles, making a spinout for size reasons unnecessary. There's about four paragraphs available each, and this should be more than enough space to adequately describe each major character. The descriptions in the list are often excessive and redundant, too. Each character's role in the story is described, even if it is minor: describing the characters themselves, and then a good description of the plot, would be a better way to inform readers of the story of this series.
    See here for more argumentation on character lists. User:Krator (t c) 12:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I seconde user:Christopher Parham reasoning. --SelfQ (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate split-off article to deal with this; as even Krator says, it's the usual way. Question of editing should be dealt with elsewhere. DGG (talk) 17:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all the others here who agree that this article should be kept. As an appropriate sub-article split, notability doesn't need to be asserted; it's asserted in the main article. The length of time that something has been tagged for notability is irrelevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and assuming that a subject isn't notable just because of the length of time an article has been tagged for improvement is just absurd. Rray (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sub articles are appropriate, but all articles need notability independent of the main article, otherwise they are not individually notable. As this has no references, and there is no indication there are any references that can be added, this has no notability and shouldn't be its own article. 00:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)
    • Notability is not the only reason to have a separate article, but also size contraints. --Pixelface (talk) 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but if notability isn't established, none of the rest of the criteria even comes up, as improvement is impossible if there is nothing to add to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a reason that notability is a guideline; it potentially conflicts with other values and we need to weigh it judiciously against those other values. In this case, merging the content to be compatible with WP:NOTE, while quite possible, would make our coverage of this area considerably worse and the articles less useful to readers. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason for this article to be deleted/merged isn't just guidelines; in this precise case, it is also a policy. Quoted from WP:NOT#PLOT:
Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot. This applies to both stand-alone works and series. A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work.
FightingStreet (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go read the editing policy, which would support a merge at the very least. --Pixelface (talk) 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single reliable source is cited to establish the subject's notability. A game guide fansite and some YouTube video are not enough. FightingStreet (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one secondary source isn't enough. Fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep Lack of ind. sec. sources in article is troubling, but topic appears quite notable. Having a "characters in" article for a notable fictional topic makes sense especially if there is no one article to merge it into. Plus WP:SIZE plays a role. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs significant cleanup Character descriptions are too plot-oriented. ("Thus did NAME set out on a quest"?? Needs to be out-of-universe writing). Cut character descriptions to one para, focusing on character traits, and then its a more proper spinoff article. --MASEM 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BAGA Keep'- I'm more concerned about getting Golden Sun: The Lost Age improved right now, however once I have the time I would like to cleanup and improve this article. I don't really care if it gets deleted, 'cause I can always bring it back, but... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This does not need to be deleted by any means. It is definitely not a game guide, because it describes each character's history, not centering on their role in the game. Although it does require some references and cleanup, it is not even close to applying for Wikipedia's Deletion policy. Anyways, every game has their own "list of characters" article, so why should Golden Sun be any different? --haha169 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup - I'm inclined to think that notability can be found and asserted; regardless, it meets the appropriate criteria for a spinoff article under WP:FICT. That said, the article needs to be drastically cleaned up per WP:WAF and reducing the in-universe information. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are the first person to say that this article may actually have notability :) Which is fine, if it does I hope it can be found and added, I'm just saying if there is none to be found... 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability does not seem to be an issue since WP:FICT says "spinout articles may be used for listing non-notable characters or other elements of the work." Even if this list proves "non-notable", the games still are.--Nohansen (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Every article must establish independent notability from the main article; just because the games are notable, doesn't mean this is too, also known as "notability is not inherited". 18:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"For fictional works, these spinout articles are typically lists of characters or other elements that usually rely on the notability of the work instead of their own" (from Summary style approach for spinout articles). While it adds "editors should strive to establish notability [...] for these spinout articles", I don't see where it says these "lists of characters or other elements" should be deleted unless they prove notable by themselves.--Nohansen (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, while Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, sub-articles (like this one) are "accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation". Also, I never said this list was notable by itself; just that WP:FICT (in a nutshell) sees no problem with sub-articles (like this one) being "used for listing non-notable characters or other elements of the work".--Nohansen (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup: If Golden Sun was just one game, I'd support merging it into there, but as it's a series of two games, it'd be somewhat harder to adequately cover the characters in them while keeping/attaining FA status in those pages. I pretty much know that this page became more popular because one of the main characters cameoed in the extremely popular Super Smash Bros. Brawl, released six years after the first Golden Sun. And now that I've a high-speed internet connection, I'm personally planning to come back to this page and give it another giant rewriting job, attempting to cut down all the cruft. I view it to be more prudent to wait until after there's been a big attempt to thoroughly clean up/tone down the page to possibly give it another AFD nom; By then any cruft-based content issues should be resolved and any true issues with notability can be put under better review. Erik Jensen (Appreciate or Laugh At) 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup It needs a lot of trimming for original research etc., but since it lists the characters of two games, I give it points for practicability even if notability may still be an issue. – sgeureka t•c 21:25, 14 March 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look What You Made Me

Look What You Made Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and only one (poor) reference. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:06, 8 March 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. No secondary sources, and both the articles and the keep votes note that little is known about it. We wouldn't have a separate article about The Briefcase in Pulp Fiction; discussion of the agency should exist in the article relevant to it, rather than having a separate article that says "We don't know much about it." If substantial, reliable secondary sources devote coverage to the Time Agency itself in the future, the article can be recreated at that time. Nandesuka (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time Agency

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

Non notable part of TV show, with little meaningful content StuartDD contributions 10:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - with some work this can be a great wikipedia article! As for notability, its expected to be expanded on further in both Doctor Who and Torchwood. TheProf | 2007 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While currently there is not much information on The Time Agency, it is still an important historical organisation for both old Doctor Who episodes, and for Captain Jack and the recurring villain/character Captain John Hart will be appearing in another two episodes in the current series, which is still being aired, more information is likely to be divulged. Shouldn't we defer the decision to delete until the end of the current series to see what else in revealed, and why is was disbanded? Resistme (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We should have clear information about the end of series 2 of Torchwood in a couple of weeks. And it'll only be a couple of weeks after that the finale airs. I think, personally, there is enough to keep the page already. The Time Agency in the 70s story and the two books is clearly linked to Captain Jack and Captain John as they're from the same century (the 51st). It is clear that the linkage between the two was deliberate and understood by the new series producers. Alberon (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. With John coming back into the series it seems reasonable to expect more information on the Time Agency, and if the entry is deleted now, it's probably just going to be recreated in a few weeks time with the new information. If we reach the end of the current series of Torchwood and there still isn't enough content for a worthwhile page, then deletion could be reasonable. Until then, I say keep Ametatsu (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, pending finalisation of relevant Arbcom injunction--VS talk 00:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough already as an organisation which spreads across several episodes and is intrinically involved with a main character. Will almost certainly improve with the season two finale of the series - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to be a notable fictional agency. --Pixelface (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment We still have no independent, reliable sources that give significant coverage to the topic. How are you establishing its notability?--Trystan (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's one way of presuming notability. The agency's mention in the Doctor Who episode The Talons of Weng-Chiang, the novels Eater of Wasps and Emotional Chemistry, a time agent's appearance in The Empty Child and The Doctor Dances, and the Torchwood episode Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang make it notable in my opinion. --Pixelface (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. Tikiwont (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disco Heaven 02.02

Disco Heaven 02.02 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An apparently non-notable compilation album. There is no information about the album, the article is solely a track listing. A Google search in an effort to add substance resulted in download links, forums and product listings. No RS coverage from which to expand this track listing or determine notability. I know albums of notable artists are notable, but compilation albums on which they have one or two songs? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

adding for the same reason

Beach House 04.02 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Back to Love 03.03 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

no RS coverage from which to expand the track listing TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TPH's comment below was added before I bundled so may not be applicable to all three TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS talk 00:48, 8 March 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. Tiptoety talk 00:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mansha Qazi

Mohammad Mansha Qazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was originally speedied under non-notable bio., but upon recreation, I'm listing it for AfD.

Non-notable journalist/speaker. Maybe speedied again under no consequence. seicer | talk | contribs 00:46, 8 March 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 00:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Crystal Palace

Live at the Crystal Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. Is it verifiable that they recorded a live show at the Crystal Palace and intended to, at least at one point in time, to release it? Yes. Is any notability shown? No. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 00:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The album has been discussed by several media outlets, several of which are linked to in the article. The album is due out in 2008 according to the band's website and MySpace page. The band is certainly notable, and many of their notable songs will be on the album. --taestell (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You obviously didn't read the references. There are three references in that article: 1st, from a small NH magazine called The Wire (not to be confused with The Wire)—that one actually mentions that they had plans to release an album with this title but that there's "no specific release date set" (and the article's from April 2006). The 2nd ref says nothing about an album; the Crystal Palace is mentioned in the context of having to tour and wishing they could just have their own club like Buck Owens (owner of the CP) does and play there regularly, rather than tour. Nothing is said about a live album, or even about the band actually playing at the Crystal Palace. The 3rd link is to the news page of the band's own website, I couldn't find any mention of the album there, either. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 11:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If I could rephrase everything taestell said, I would, but seveal upcoming albums exist that do not have sources. There is the need for attention. This, however, has sources, and is a minor article. Hakeem (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sourced, definitive stuff known about it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:59, 8 March 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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 07:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OCEAN Magazine

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

Very hard to tell if this magazine is notable or not, a Google news search links to various magazines with ocean in the title. Most of the references are primary, the secondary ones seem minor and don't really amount to significant coverage. Polly (Parrot) 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, did you? I did not look. This kind of thing needs someone who knows where to look in US sources on magazines. It is not for an Australian to do. This is particular so here as there appears to be two magazines with the same name. --Bduke (talk) 04:39, 8 March 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 Closed per consensus to delete. Note: General Electric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article treats the subject more neutrally and has better references. — Athaenara ✉ 06:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GE Ecomagination

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

This reads like an advertisement for the campaign, and I think it might be copied directly off the ecomagination site. At the very least, this should be marked as not npov Codyrank (talk) 04:10, 8 March 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.
  1. ^ Non-notability is a rebuttable presumption based only on a lack of suitable evidence of notability, which becomes moot once evidence is found. It is not possible to prove non-notability because that would require a negative proof.
  2. ^ However, many subjects presumed to be notable may still not be worthy of inclusion – they fail What Wikipedia is not, or the coverage does not actually support notability when examined. For example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, minor news stories, and coverage with low levels of discrimination, are all examples of information that may not be evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation, despite their existence as reliable sources.
  3. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
  4. ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has recieved by the world at large.
  5. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
  6. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
  7. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_8&oldid=196722601"