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. Article was deleted under CSDG4 for unrelated reasons some time after this AfD was created.
The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.
As discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kikuo Harigaya, this article was deleted before. The present article is a recreation of the same subject. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/K_2008 shows that there were several sock puppets with respect to this article. A new sock puppets may have contributed to this article. Therefore, the deletion of this article and blocking of the new sock puppets should be desirable. --NIMS MANA (talk)
Speedy Delete - recreation of previously deleted article without any attempts to provide evidence of notability since previous AfD. --DAJF (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I nominated for speedy but with the additons of reference we have to go this way. Delete for being utter bullshit. Non Encyclopedic and brings nothing to the table to improve. Sorry if this is mean, juswt being honest. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on this article. But be aware that "nonsense" is generally regarded to mean things like "alsdkfjalskdjfalskdj" and not "colorless homes manically menacingly pride". The CSD criteria are the subject of intense debate. I would add though, that I believe it would be very problematic for someone, especially an admin, to decline a speedy that is "nonsense" when in fact it's an obvious "no context", on the grounds that the person used G1 instead of A1. Shadowjams (talk) 06:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Hell in a Bucket. While some sources relating to "quantum healing" and such have now been added, none of them seems to validate the notion of "body jokes," which reads like original research if not outright nonsense. --MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I can't find anything of significance either, to the extent this is possible to search for. The article says so little that it's hard to know what this is even supposed to be notable for. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge - I've found a few sources that mention it ([1], [2], [3]), but not really enough for a separate article. It might be appropriate as a mention somewhere in the Google article on in Google Summer of Code (which it seems to be connected with), but I don't think independent notability has been established yet. Robofish (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google sponsored over 1000 projects in the last Summer of Code. We couldn't possibly discuss all of them in that article. Pcapping06:06, 3 January 2010 (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.
Wikipedia is not the place to announce and describe a proposed research project. This encyclopedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information nor a crystal ball. Slp1 (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2010 (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.
UPDATE: Yes, as I was drafting the AfD notice the article was speedy-deleted, meaning that Twinkle recreated the page to place the template on it. This can be closed; sorry for the inconvenience and I'll renominate if the article is created again. I didn't think TV shows fit in any CSD category, but I guess others were of a different opinion, so no problem. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Before it was deleted for the second time I was about to nominate it for speedy as spam, which I think would be appropriate, as it's a promotion for an incomplete project. But since it's currently a blog, db-web might be apt, too. 76.248.149.51 (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested Prod. I don't see the notability of either the building or the congregation. The sources indicate that the congregation existed, but without any notability, and faded out through lack of interest. We don't have much guidance on religious buildings/congregations - WP:CHURCH and WP:Local are the closest we have, and both indicate that such minor religious buildings/congregations be dealt with in the local place article, rather than as a standalone. A redirect to New Cross where the building is mentioned may be appropriate. SilkTork *YES!21:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – And please tell me if I am wrong here. I understand why the editor nominated the article for deletion. Basically because it is now defunct. However, I view a Synagogue – Church or Mosques as more than just a physical building. But look at the name as a congregation of individual people that transcends just the building. If we look at it from that stand point, I see this particular congregation as the pulpit for the likes of Immanuel Jakobovits, Baron Jakobovits, who was the resident rabbi of the congregation, as shown here [5]. Does this make South East London Synagogue notable? In my eyes yes. However, not sure if that becomes inherent to the congregation. Happy New Year. JAAGTalk22:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the sources in the article (The lost synagogues of London) has four pages of coverage of the subject. Along with the coverage in the other sources that would appear to amount to enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2010 (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.
Fails WP:NFF and WP:N. Supposed sequel, but has not started production and not enough significant coverage to actually support. Nothing but a big rumor mill at this point. -- Collectonian (talk· contribs) 21:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also added a citation for information and used the citation already given to cover other information in the article. It should be noted that Collectonian very recently blanked the article rather than either (1) looking for citations that can be found easily or (2) tagged where citations are needed. It is hard to see this blanking as anything other than vandalism designed to encourage people to vote to delete the article. 142.68.47.197 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — 142.68.47.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
You added one source, which again does not show the movie is being filmed and considering it confirms only one person's reprisal of the role who is now dead, the article does NOT meet our future film notability guidelines. Further, do not call the removal of an invalid infobox and of statements labeled clearly as "rumors" and that were uncited vandalism. If you have actual sourced content to add, then add it, but to not add made up stories and do not insult other editors by calling their valid edits vandalism when you are not an editor yourself. -- Collectonian (talk· contribs) 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Hollywood Reporter article does confirm that the film is being made. The recording of voices is said to be happening starting this month, and for an animated film this is production. The article also mentions who is doing the animation. So I think there is enough confirmation to keep the article. 142.68.47.197 (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Said to be starting, not actually starting and considering one of the voice actresses just died recently, I'd doubt they are still on schedule. Thus far, the only "sources" are confirmations of the attempt, but not any actual confirmation of the title, its really being in production, and anything else. At best, the redirect that was there should be restored or it should be merged to the first article, but as it is, they haven't confirmed the title will be Happy Feet 2, so delete seems better. -- Collectonian (talk· contribs) 03:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Hollywood Reporter article names the title of the film as "Happy Feet 2". It looks to me like there is a title for it. But there is little information about the film, so placing this as a subsection of the Happy Feet article would not be a bad idea for now. 142.68.47.197 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to placing the article back as a section within Happy Feet again. I'm still trying to get my bearings when it comes to what should be added, and when...I would agree that I was probably premature in taking it from the section it was in and creating a stand-alone article. Things will likely clear up with this movie in the next sixty days. -- John Dhabolt (talk) 09:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Incubate without prejudice toward recreation. A quick search finds that the proposed film is receiving a significant amount coverage toward meeting WP:GNG and the requirements of WP:CRYSTAL's "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". There's A Pakistani News, Toon Zone News, New York Magazine, Courier Mail, Embrace Australia, The Age, Los Angeles Times, The Australian, Brisbane Times, The Australian and more. As voice recording commences and the animation work begins, it is reasonable to expect this film will receive even more... not less. Deletion is not a proper solution to a correctable issue. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.10:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be plenty of reportage about the sequel. If the known facts seem slight then the matter might be merged into the article about the original movie pending further news. Deletion seems quite inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2010 (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. Assessing this AfD under our policies it is clear that the article violates WP:PRIMARY - an essential part of WP:OR which is of course one of the Five pillars. The bulk of the information has been put together not from reliable sources, but from direct observation of the episodes, and speculation is part of that observation. One of the founding principles of our encyclopedia is that: “Our editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here.” In this article we have personal interpretations based on observations of number plates and tax discs in various Dr Who episodes. Comments throughout the discussion have asserted that there are some reliable sources supporting the article, and that the original research can be removed. I have been through the article and checked all 184 footnotes – all bar one is interpretation by an editor on a primary source; the only reliable source cited is used to confirm that the episode "Children in Need special" is also known as "Born Again" – it is not used to support the premise of the article. One of our reasons for deletion is that an article is based on original theories and conclusions – which this clearly is. However, there is a strong desire by people for this article to be kept. 19 people have !voted for keeping it, and only 5 have !voted for deletion. Also, FeydHuxtable says on WP:NORN – “we shouldnt enforce policy with the same rigour on trivial subjects as we do for biographies, economics, relgion etc.” And even though Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists states that “Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies…” by convention, lists are given somewhat more slack than the parent articles. There was no discussion as to questions of notability for this topic, as it was assumed by all that a Dr Who timeline would be an appropriate and notable topic. So it comes down to the question of should this article be deleted as it falls foul of the primary source policy, or should it be kept despite that, and with questions about the robustness of the research, because people like it,, and we shouldn’t be so harsh on a ”minor” list – especially as it is neatly formatted, and a lot of care and thought has gone into creating it. As it is assumed the topic is an appropriate and welcome one, but the concern is down to sourcing, it appears that the solution would be to source the article. Let’s be clear that as it currently stands the article does violate our policies, and as such it must be improved. But it seems appropriate to give the article creators time to source the article, and if the article is not satisfactorily sourced within, say, six months, that the matter can be brought again to AfD, with reference to the conclusion of this AfD. SilkTork *YES!12:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a terrible article. It's a really terrible article. Since its inception, the article has suffered from original research problems because some stories cannot be given a definitive dating (that fact is notable in itself!), and we attempt to definitively date them anyway. The references aren't really references either; they're footnotes containing a lot of equivocating and uncertainty and general editorial statements that we prohibit for a very good reason. Worse, the article actually contradicts reliable sources, and that's a conscious decision done between 2007 and today, because I remember citing the 63-89 stories to reliable sources. I also do not think any amount of cleanup would solve the inherent synthesis and OR problems in this article. This article would be better on a project that allows original research, but not on Wikipedia. Sceptre(talk)20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I second this. If I recall correctly, I think at one point the validity of the article was discussed and editors agreed it should only remain on the promise it could acquire reliable commentary to attest the notability of story dating in Doctor Who. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia.~ZytheTalk to me!23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has multiple independent RS. OR should be dealt with by excision, rather than deletion of sourced content which happens to share the same article. There's ultimately no policy-based reason for deletion articulated; both !voters make an argument that deletion is easier than cleanup, but that is uncompelling. Jclemens (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for what it's worth); the list is useful and combines information from various sources without contradicting them. Mark J (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. This article is largely original research - unless the date is specified in the actual programme, we cannot guess at the dates, such as going on the number plate of cars. An educated guess does not equal fact, especially in a time travelling programme like Doctor Who.. Paul75 (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Uncle G: OK, I read it and understand why combining fictional universes in an article is probably a pretty bad idea in the long run (or the short run as far as I can tell). But I'm no closer to understanding your stance on this article: Keep or delete, and why? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be a case for editing down some of the commentary to comply with WP:OR, but the bulk of this article simply collates information that has been broadcast, as the extensive footnotes show. Dogbert (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Works such as The Doctor Who Programme Guide routinely comment on the chronology of the episodes, e.g. "The TARDIS lands in 1430 inside the Tomb of Yetaxa...", "The scene is London in 2167.". Collating such commentary to assist navigation amongst our various Doctor Who articles is quite proper and helpful to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know about those works; please read my nomination statement. What I'm saying is that people are consciously ignoring them, including their own observations based on, say, car number plates or props in the background, and no amount of cleanup will prevent or totally remove that. Sceptre(talk)20:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to have edited the article or its talk page for at least a year. Per our deletion policy, you should raise your concerns at the article's talk page. If they lack consensus then you should accept this with good grace or start an RFC. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't bother editing the article or its talk page any more because the editors who maintain it these days are the same ones that resisted my efforts to remove the original research. Sceptre(talk)23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem was your efforts to remove the supposed OR involved wholesale deletions containing much material that no-one had any problem about. No-one has any problem with you including dates derivable from reliable sources (I don't add dates from these published works myself, as I don't have copies). And if you have any problems with specific entries you can raise them in the discussion pages (though I cannot guarantee your view will always be accepted). Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article has some serious problems, but deleting it would be a mistake. It's certainly notable, and could probably be reliably sourced. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that people ignore reliable sources and add original research is a problem, but it's not a problem deletion can solve. If we went around deleting every article that suffers from such problems, it would make a farce of the deletion policy that clearly says that any page that can be improved though editing - no matter how much work it might be (WP:DEADLINE!) - should not be deleted. It has been said already (even by the nominator) that reliable sources exist that could serve to fix the problems mentioned as reasons for deletion - so the correct way to deal with this article is to fix it, not to delete it. Regards SoWhy22:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does need a clean up, but that is not a reason for deletion. People will add original research, but that happens to most articles, and is also not a reason to delete. Martin451 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mainly per Jclemens and Dogbert. Also:
"...I remember citing the 63-89 stories to reliable sources" - And would it really be so difficult to see such sources restored in the references section, rather than go with the easy route by nominating the article for deletion?
"...we attempt to definitively date them anyway"/"...people are consciously ignoring them, including their own observations based on, say, car number plates or props in the background" - Then it is the editors of the article who constitute the real issue here, and who should alter their approach, rather than the article itself, which is suffering from a drop in editing standards. Plenty of the Doctor's adventures can be attributed to reliable sources, or even to the dialogue itself within a particular story.
"I also do not think any amount of cleanup would solve the inherent synthesis and OR problems in this article"/"...no amount of cleanup will prevent or totally remove that" - Why? Because it's too long? Too complicated a task? The page can be rewritten if necessary, and Wikipedia has no deadlines. It would seem a shame to delete the article, no matter how "terrible" (as is asserted) it may be, when some story dating can be verified using reliable sources (and, as the nominator himself admits in the first quotation above, reliable sources do exist). I believe that Doctor Who: The Legend by Justin Richards (BBC Books, originally published 2003, reprinted since), for example, contains locations and dates for each story. SuperMarioMan (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. The question of OR has been extensively discussed on the articles discussion pages - see here and here. As part of these discussions, the question was referred to WP:NORN for their opinion - see here. As you can see, there is far from a consensus that the article is in breach of OR - in fact, the consensus is that it is not - and if a supposed breach of OR is the 'grounds' for deletion, then we're even further from a consensus on that! I submit, that if anyone is going to nominate an article for deletion on the grounds of a breach of Wikipedia policy, they should at least obtain some consensus that there is such a breach. The nominator - a poster who has had a recent period of being banned from editing - has signally failed to do so on previous occassions, and having lost those arguments is now attempting to abuse the deletion procedure as a another method of attack. 2. The article does not give definitive dates for anything. It is quite clear that "all such attributed dates are possibilities only" - so in order to demonstrate a breach of WP:OR or WP:POV you must establish that there are dates given that are not a possibility based on the information referenced. The article further explains that "Many stories and episodes depict or refer to events similar to historical events in real life, or involve characters identifiable as real-life historic individuals, and it is therefore a possibility (but not a certainty) that they have corresponding dating. Similarly, many dates or periods of time are given without specifying the calendar or units of time; but it is therefore possible (though not certain) that the dates are given in the Gregorian calendar and the units of time are those in common, everyday usage in the real world. Finally, when a character gives the date or span of time, it is assumed that they are correct. To minimise duplication, these rationales are not explicitly referred to in the table, but the provisional nature of any attributable dates based on them should be borne in mind" (my italics). All possible dates are based on information from the episodes themselves - and fictional works are reliable sources for their content - with basic logical inferences that anyone can verify for themselves (such routine calculations are not forbidden by WP:OR - see here). Everything is referenced; all possibilities are noted - and it is left to the reader to decide for themselves which if any possibilities they wish to accept. No attempt is made to impose a particular view on anyone. 3. If the nominator has dates based on reliable sources, let him enter them in the article; at least bring them up in the discussion pages. No-one's stopping him. 4. Although not the most viewed article, people do find it a useful collation. I would refer to note 2: "...I just wanted to double-check that I'm not going to say anything that contradicts something; so I went and looked back and there's a whole kind of timeline of everywhere he's been; and, and I looked, and it was, oh, he was actually in Rome" - James Moran, writer of "Fires of Pompeii", interviewed in the What Has 'The Romans' Ever Done For Us? documentary extra on The Romans DVD." (Though not a direct reference to this article, it is at least a reference to something very similar!) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, bringing in "possibly", "maybe", things like that invite original research in by the back door. The thing is, we also go way beyond just using elementary logic in our dating. I remember one episode being dated as taking place in a particular month purely because of a prop of a poster. It'd be an impressive piece for a thesis, or a book of your own, but not as a Wikipedia article. Take it to the TARDIS wikia. Sceptre(talk)08:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a very short thesis or book! Again, AfD is not the place to dispute whether the article is in breach of WP:OR. There are other places for that, which have been used, and the consensus has been that it is not in breach. You can always revive the arguments. Good luck. As for your specific one: There are a number of episodes that have possible dates attributed to them on the basis of posters giving dates for specific events that occur in the episodes themselves. The article just presents the information that such a poster can be seen - no-one has to accept it. (And why is a poster giving a date any less valid than a character giving a date?) But, if you don't like the use of posters in this manner, bring it up on the article's discussion page. The same if you think any arguments presented go "way beyond just using elementary logic" - there may be a valid point there, and we should try an reach consensus on what keeps us within the 'routine calculations' acceptable to WP:OR and what does not. What you are trying to do is to delete the entirety of the article, the vast majority of which no-one has any doubts about, because of a minority of entries you are not happy with for some reason. (And I don't want to take it to TARDIS wikia, as that has no requirement for reliable sources!) Cuddlyopedia (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OR can be dealt with by editing, by dispute resolution and if all else fails by admin action. Since the whole article isn't OR - we know that the scripts and related collateral in some case date themselves, and where they do not, this is also worth noting - there is no reason to delete it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that original research is inherent in the article's existence. If I thought there was genuinely a small chance that the problems could be fixed without deletion, I'd slap the OR tags on. But no, I think that we can't fully remove the original research elements in the page, hence why it's at AFD. Yes, AFD is not for cleanup, but that does not mean we can keep every single article with OR problems under the fallacious assumption that all OR problems can be fixed. Sceptre(talk)15:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OR problems afflicting part of an article can be fixed by their removal or, more ideally, attribution, where possible, to reliable sources (and, in the case of this article, there are plenty of those out there). If an editor were so bold as to transfer all questionable chronology to a new section, as Whoniverse93 suggests below, and strengthen dates that we can be sure of via good sourcing, the problem would be solved. It's simply a matter of hard work - work that wouldn't be so insurmountable as to leave deletion the only possible solution for this article. OR may be "inherent" in the approach that is used when editing this article, but not in in its very existence - the worth of its existence can be proven by making use of the sources available to make it more authoritative. SuperMarioMan (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. The simple fact is that in creating a chronology of Doctor Who, a show that has been on the air forty-six years, will always require original research, for many reasons: UNIT, the lag of reliable sources behind transmission of an episode, sources ignoring the spinoffs, many episodes being impossible to date specifically (i.e. most of the 2000s episodes), et cetera. Sceptre(talk)00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already suggested, the problem seems less about the page itself, more people's approaches to editing it (your comment about "people consciously ignoring [reliable sources]" would seem to support that). OR is not like how Mediaeval peasants saw the Plague, striking people down here, there and everywhere by the arbitrary whim of the Grim Reaper, it doesn't originate from nowhere, and it is not "inherent" in an article's subject since it is easy enough to remove if one makes a commitment; OR is inserted into articles by editors and left through unvoiced consensus which deems that it should be allowed to remain. Change people's mindset and an article will be less vulnerable to OR. Insertion can be countered by extraction and if it's necessary, that is what I suggest: stripping the article down so that all its content is attributable to reliable sources (there's the book I linked to above, and the BBC's classic Doctor Who episode guide at BBC Online is another). "...will always require original research" - perhaps for some stories where the dating is vague, but not all. In Pyramids of Mars, Laurence Scarman explicitly gives the year as 1911; in Warriors of the Deep, the Doctor says that he, Tegan and Turlough are all in the year 2084. Unless referring to explicit, stated, undeniable dialogue is somehow now to be considered OR, I fail to see how that particular card can be played. Those were just two examples that I plucked from the top of my head in an instant, and they pretty soundly beat assertions of OR. How many more?
Yes, the programme's 46 years old, but the BBC site gives dates for all the classic stories, so I don't really see what longevity has to do with it. Certainly, there's confusion about many of the Third Doctor stories, but if necessary, we can just restrict our chronology to stories with definite dating (of which there are many) and transfer the Pertwee adventures to a subsection or, most radically, the UNIT dating controversy page. Spin-offs are another thorny issue, but again, there are plenty of Doctor Who stories where we can be sure of the chronology, enough to leave an article that is reliable and of sufficient length (if the page must be specifically renamed "Chronology of the Doctor Who stories" or the like, so be it). And even if some stories are "impossible to date specifically", what is the problem with giving the best approximation, backed up by sources? That would be far more helpful to a reader than simply having the page deleted and therefore losing even that.
I'm puzzled by how you admit that reliable sources are available, and that you have edited this page in the past, but are now proposing its deletion, mainly (as it seems to me) for the reason that editors' attitudes have changed over the years. The damage can be reversed. Perhaps not every story could be included, but a collection of definitely-dated, sourced bits of chronology would make a useful addition for interested readers. SuperMarioMan (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even when I was editing it, I was adding some original research in. While we do have stories which are definitively dated (Warriors of the Deep, The Waters of Mars, et cetera), quite a lot of them will be. I've no problem with using the BBC's sources, but really, the least we can do is totally scorch the article immediately and use only dates provided in reliable sources who have done the research for us. And we need a prohibition against citing the episodes unless we have an explicitly mentioned date in the Gregorian (or Julian) calendar or can derive it from basic primary school mathematics (2005, plus twelve months, is 2006). Also, original research is an inherent problem in some cases, mostly but not wholly were we're categorising things with labels that have different definitions. Sceptre(talk)04:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A complete failure to take account of the fact that fictional material is a reliable source for it's content; and why are we restricting ourselves to only one category of routine calculations? If you're going to keep on about the need to apply the OR policy, you should use all of that policy, and not just select those bits that happen to suit your agenda. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sceptre in that, really, anything questionable needs attention. To take an example, here is the note accompanying the dating for "The Doctor's Daughter" (currently listed as 6012):
"Donna recognised '60120724' as the date in the format yyyymmdd (year month day), with '60120717' being seven days earlier. The Doctor said that it was the New Byzantine calendar, but otherwise did not correct her. Although the relationship with the Gregorian calendar is not given, it's possible that it's simply a renaming and reformatting of the latter (if not, then the episode is set at an unknown future date as it involves a human extraterrestrial colony)."
With no source to shed light on the relationship between the calendars, it is irresponsible to claim (in the main article body) that the year of the story setting is in the 7th (Gregorian) millennium. However, I concur with Cuddlyopedia that we should not be selective about the dating system that we use. Perhaps adventures such as this one (where an unfamiliar system is being applied), should be moved to a separate section named "Non-Gregorian dating systems", or such like. SuperMarioMan (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say that the episode is set in 6012; just that it is possible that it is set at that date, because it is possible that the New Byzantine date given is simply a restatement of the Gregorian calendar (the character Donna Noble acted as if it was). On the question of calendars, the article states in the heading that "many dates or periods of time are given without specifying the calendar or units of time; but it is therefore possible (though not certain) that the dates are given in the Gregorian calendar and the units of time are those in common, everyday usage in the real world. ... To minimise duplication, these rationales are not explicitly referred to in the table, but the provisional nature of any attributable dates based on them should be borne in mind." However, this article was originally placed where it is now, but moved by me to the 'unknown future' section, precisely because of this doubt. I later moved it back on reflection as that specific date is a possibility. If you're unhappy with the positioning of this episode, then raise it on the discussion page and let's see what people think about it. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Almost EVERY fiction page IS orginal research. It is impossible to "verify" the facts as they are fictional! The only reference we could say is GO WATCH THE EPISODE! That would be pretty silly and we would get references such as <ref>The End of time 00:30:00</ref>. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time!16:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That argument only works for undisputable things, such as, say, the Doctor regenerating at the end of The End of Time. This goes way beyond that, in a few examples relying on background props that very few people will notice. Which is OR, as it falls way outside "basic deduction". Sceptre(talk)00:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it's the number of people who'd notice that's the relevant criteria now is it, not whether it's a reliable source or not? You're getting desperate. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you define "background prop" if soemon can point to a prop that gives the date then it can be verified as a primary source sources don't need to be obvious to notice only there if you go looking. --Natet/c16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mr Saxon poster in the background in "Captain Jack Harkness" dates that to being close to series 3 of Doctor Who. And that's beyond what we can use primary sources for. We can only use primary sources for something that everyone can agree on. Sceptre(talk)21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which might be a good argument, except for the fact that the article does not use that poster to date anything! A different poster is referred to, which gives a specific date for an event (a dance) that occurs in the episode. Other examples where posters are used are "Rose", "Unquiet Dead", Delta and the Bannermen, "Adrift", again all of which posters give specific dates. And these aren't just posters in the background - they are deliberately pointed out by the camera focusing on them! Cuddlyopedia (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I personally find this article very useful to Doctor Who episodes. However, I do think it requires a large clean up. Dates that are not 100% known should be put under a "not known" section, for example. I do understand the reasons for the AFD but I think it could be a very valuable article. Whoniverse93(talk)17:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think there's a fundamental problem with this kind of article (and the episode themselves can serve as a reference), but I am concerned at making assumptions and extrapolations, which falls well into original research. E.g., there's the nonsense of claiming the exact date of 1,002,164 because the Doctor once says "a million years" and the year then was 2164 - it seems highly unlikely he meant *exactly* one million years to the year. It also doesn't make sense to use the term "c." when you're then giving that many significant figures, and we do this several times in the article. It would be like saying the Dinosaurs were wiped out approximately 65,000,004 years ago, on the grounds that I read in a book 4 years ago that the Dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago! I raised this point here [6], but it isn't fixed. The discussion there talks in terms of what the editors think is "likely", which falls well under original research. Mdwh (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A complete misrepresentation of what happened and the arguments for the current policy (which is basically that it's the only choice that's not WP:POV). But again, the AfD is not the place to conduct these disputes. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, because it's an example of the original research in this article. Obviously you don't agree that it's OR, but other editors here can make up their own mind. I'm not sure how what I said is a misrepresentation - what I gave is my own representation of my own argument. Mdwh (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reliable sources for the dates of many stories, and for at least a range for other stories. To the extent there is original research that should be addressed by editing, not deletion of the entire article. Rlendog (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - only useful for fans - and I'm not sure it's even useful for them since it's been made so ridiculously complicated by editors trying to join contradictory hints and guesses into one time line. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not a timeline (as it says - have people actually read the introduction?), which would imply that it seeks to make a definitive ordering of the episodes. It is simply a chronology, i.e. a list ordered by date of the information contained in the episodes that can potentially be used to give possible dates. Cuddlyopedia (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In reference to the "only useful for fans" comment. Most articles are about fictional things, and I really don't think anyone would bother reading them if they weren't a fan. DreamFocus08:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful list for those who wish to navigate through the timeline of the series, Doctor Who a time traveler after all, and it good to have an article to straighten out when everything happened at. For a such a long running and massive series, an article to sort through the information, is a perfectly reasonable thing to have. DreamFocus08:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & clean up, making derived (i.e. unstated but implied) dates more obvious, an asterisk would do it. --Natet/c16:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No sources in the article, poor formatting (page wizard obviously wasn't used). I contacted the editor and didn't receive a response. The other account that was used in editing this, an anonymous IP address, has been linked to vandalism. In addition, some of the text at the end of the article was purely opinion. Mrmewe (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This song is not a single, has not been announced as a single, it has not charted in any country and the only notability it has is its inclusion in a soundtrack. Keytar Shredder (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm only finding passing mentions of this song within reviews for the Muse album or New Moon soundtrack. I don't mind that it's not a single, or that it hasn't charted, but there does not appear to be enough in-depth coverage for this song to warrant an independent article at this time. Gongshow Talk18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - I agree with Gongshow. An individual song doesn't have to be a charting single to be notable (for example, Stairway to Heaven) but in this case there is no third-party discussion for notability. The info in this article should just be merged into the article for the parent album. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs)18:48, 1 January 2010 (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. the consensus is the soucing is thin and many opf te keep arguments are falling outside the GNG to find evidence of notability and are therefore not policy based. SpartazHumbug!05:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a neologism created for an ad campaign whose lack of worth becomes more evident with each passing year. This has survived 2 previous AFD, the first mostly on the grounds of "I hear the ad on tv all the time", and the second on "well it won an award", which the word didn't, the commercial did, and even then, it tied for third place in a very specific subcategory - Telecom ads. It also is lacking in notability sources. Delete as non notable. CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€20:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the phrase has fast become well-known worldwide and there is also a lot of coverage on the interent from reliable sources that could be included in the article. Definitley notable, no doubt about that.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Voter is known sockpuppet on matters directly related to this topic, see [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elielilamasabachthani/Archive]. FWIW. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€06:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Was clearly a one-time idea from a Virgin Mobile commercial that has little notability into the present, aside from occasional media use for absurdity effect. — CIS(talk | stalk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. I dispute the fact that it's known "worldwide", as I'd never heard of it until I came across this discussion. Wouldn't object a merge with a "List of Virgin Mobile USA advertising campaigns" article though. Lankiveil(speak to me)06:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete ONE reference in an outside source - an ABC News item from 2004 - is not enough to constitute notability. Nobody seems to have noticed it since then. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Weak Keep/Rewrite - Just throwing in my two cents to help reach some sort of consensus. My thoughts on notability match those of Hullaballoo above. Notability is not temporary and isn't always rational. But CastAStone way up above noted that the article is about the commercial when the term is what has notability. The article should be re-written to focus more on the term with just passing mention of the commercial. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs)18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and redirect toVirgin Mobile USA at most. Notability is not temporary, true, but that Ad nauseam argument overlooks that this was not notable to begin with and the reasons given in the prior AfDs were not reasons at all. Tied for third place for an Effie, and got some slow news day, Christmas season fluff pieces, probably written from a press release? Incidentally, the number of news hits goes down further when +virgin is added to exclude articles where writers independently invented the rather obvious compound word.[8] Humbug! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Initially I thought weak keep, but the article reads like an advert for Virgin. Would need a lot of re-writing to keep I think, the one reference is a concern. DRosin (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mansfold - further evidence that if I hate some pop-culture meme, then it is probably notable. Bah humbug! Bearian (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Soft redirect to Wiktionary. The article is about an advertising campaign that does not meet the standards required for notability (3rd place in a specific sub-category of one awards ceremony does not cut the mustard). As for the word itself, Wikipedia is not a dictionary but it seems to merit an entry at Wiktionary (I'm just about to create wikt:Chrismahanukwanzakah). Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The news sources suggested by Mandsford prove that the word is in use, but don't unequivocally show notability of the "event", as opposed to the word. One of those news pieces suggests a possible link with Christmas controversy; if there are more like this, a merge may be appropriate. Otherwise, a soft redirect to Wiktionary, as advocated by Thryduulf, may be better. Given that this has been discussed three times, I fear that deletion will just lead to re-creation. Cnilep (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keepeasily meets WP:N. [9] is a good example, but there are plenty of articles from major news sources purely on this topic. Should there be? Probably not. But there you are. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That article would be a good source for an article about the concept of festivals combining several religion's holidays that take place in December, but that is not the subject of this article. The subject of this article is primarily about the advertising campaign and the ABC News article you link to only mentions it twice, both times in passing. We can use this article to verify that (a) the campaign existed and (b) it was designed to sell Virgin Mobile phones - which is not enough to base an article on. Others have suggested the wp article be refocused to be about the word, but this source is completely silent on that so would not be of any use for verification purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it meets the notability criteria at all. Either your saying it meets it for being a word, which it doesn't, or it does for being a holiday, which it doesn't - its an ad jingle that caused a MINOR stir in 2005 and has since been abandoned. Flash in the pan does not meet the General notability guideines.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are at least 3 keeps here that argue that it shouldn't be here but it meets WP:N so we should keep it. I remind the closing admin that WP:N is a guideline that was built by consensus with the further consensus that it can be overridden by consensus when it makes sense, see WP:IAR. If you think this shouldn't meet the notability guidelines but want to keep it, your missing the entire point of Wikipedia's consensus system and descriptive - not prescriptive - guidelines.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chrismukkah, and replace with a soft redirect to wikt:Chrismahanukwanzakah. While I came into this debate expecting the article to meet WP:GNG easily, I'm admittedly having a difficult time finding sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a separate article. However, I do favor the idea of preserving some of the information in the Chrismukkah article, and creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an ad campaign! Come on, one mention after all this discussion above, in an ABC online post is not enough to make it notable, not to mention it's p art of a freaking ad campaign. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. According to Wikipedia:Notability, a person is notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The significant coverage can be found at, e.g., this page (in Chinese) at Sina.com. Li Jianying received a gold medal for pilots, the highest honor for a PLA pilot. I think that he is notable enough. --Pengyanan (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but he was, basically, known for a single event, and was not known before or after (obviously, because he unfortunately died). See WP:SBST. --Nlu (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Victoria Cross winners are also usually only known for a single event, but they are always held to be notable. If this medal really is the highest award for pilots in China then the article should be kept, as recipients of the highest honour in a country have always been held to be inherently notable on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the medal is the highest award in China for pilots then the subject is notable. Maybe a little rewriting would help, but the subject is sufficiently notable. DRosin (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am a new Wikipedia user, so apologies if I have done something incorrectly on this page. I would like to understand why though so that I can learn for the future.
I have included only factual information that can be verified by outside sources - none of which are social networking websites, which I believe are not considered to be relevant sources.
Hello, and thanks for your messages. You might want to look at WP:BAND for information about who is deemed to merit an article. The weblinks you have given kind of fall short (I think) of the criteria required. People writing that they like the band on several web-only sites isn't quite the same as "multiple non-trivial published works". However, this place is all about discussion and if other people disagree then it won't be deleted. Equally, if you can come up with some top-notch references then do so! Good luck, and please don't be discouraged. Chris (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC) PS: I like the band though![reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I have asked for editing help on this article at least 3 times and only 1 person, Ukexpat, responded. I made the changes he suggested and viewed the guides he listed. Later I requested it be move to the main page if it was in good shape to do so. I did send a copy to David Marcou to check for accuracy. He thought it was taking too long in the process, so he up loaded the page himself. I posted the original version using cut and paste. I did not realize that was a mistake in some aspects. I find Wikipedia to be some what hard to use in terms of doing some things in creating an article for the main page. He may not be as notable as others, but there are probably others like him already in Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Kayak paddler (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet WP:NOTE, especially since this written by his friends. Problems with Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. If we has so notable, they why did he have to enlist friends to write an article about him? We don't have articles about writers or photographers from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, so I ask myself why is this freelance writer/photographer more notable than they are? Royalbroil01:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I completely disagree with the argument as no biases are prominently reflected in the article which simply tries to collate different examples where apparently atleast some people share an opinion that justice was not done. Obviously any other contrary point of view does not cease to exist if simply somebody is categorised as a victim of the legal system. On the contrary the point of view which you seem to be proposing is based as a automatic defence towards the entitlement victim mentality populace (I am hurt so I deserve a huge compensation) thus bypassing the actual victims of real injustice.
The article does not try to define the subject and is merely a introductory sentence. If the article lacks content please free to add some as the last time I checked deletionists are not precluded from adding to any article rather than simply disagreeing with content. I agree that it should be merged with any appropriate legal subject. The applicability of the examples with regards to the subject is a matter of opinion and should be appropriately contradicted at the proper juncture rather than simply bungling the article.
One more comment. I doubt the article could be rewritten as there really isn't much to say about the subject, in my opinion, and everything that could be said would inherently be biased. Peasantwarrior (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently there isn't much to say about the subject because nobody has taken the care to write anything at one location. Feel free to research the subject before reaching a hastied opinion. Biases are inherent to the person and a perfectly neutral point of view may be taken rationally to reach a informed conclusion which apparently seems to be lacking.
Everything any person says could be considered biased as it is his point of view, without ofcourse trying to rationally analyse the points being presented.
--YH1975 (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nice find. As it seems that article speaks of exactly the same subject and as there seems to be a consensus (even including the original editor) that this may be moved/merged/redirected to something else, I'll try to redirect to Miscarriage of justice and incorporate the term "travesty of justice" into that article. Miscarriage of justice article has some issues itself, but it has much more content and is less biased, so I believe it presents a good platform for those willing to work on that subject. I hope this redirect/merge is not too presumptuous of me and that I have correctly assessed we have a consensus here. Peasantwarrior (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've added some information about travesty of justice to the Miscarriage of justice article. However, redirecting is not possible at this time because it would delete an AfD notice on the article itself and that's forbidden because the discussion is still open (and I'm, of course, way too stupid to remember that at first). Peasantwarrior (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Move - move the content to here: [12]. There's not enough to go on for a full article. Also, an argument over who is or isn't biased is for pundits and has little to do with whether an encyclopedia article is notable. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs)19:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has nothing substantive to say. Smerdis has a good idea: blank this page and redirect to miscarriage of justice which is a well written article and a more neutral term. Or if that's not technically possible, just delete the article. --MelanieN (talk) 05:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - at most, it's a one-time vanity release that can be discussed in the page for Bizzy Bone. Note that the album is not for sale (under either title) even at bizzybone.us and it is not mentioned in the artist biography page. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs)19:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as not notable for a standalone article. I'm not sure any speedy category applies except advertising, and I don't think this is blatant advertising. Glenfarclas (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think it a special case for an individual degree at an individual University to be notable. However this one does seem to have been the subject of some degree of coverage. A merge might not be appropriate either as it is a course offered as a collaboration between multiple universities (ie it might demand a separate article as it could be a separate entity). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Doesn't seem to be notable. Seems to be an amateur college team that only plays locally. No mention of playing in a notable league or coverage by national or regional sports media. Seems to play at a stadium shared with other organisations, to the 10,000 seats areprobably not an indication of their following. Not convincingly referenced. COI as the author seems to be one of the players. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "about 3.7% of Punjab's population support the club.....FC 8-0 is the most popular football club in FUIEMS with around 200 fans" - seems to be something of a contradiction there, unless Punjab is a lot smaller than I thought..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability (though judging from the number of times IPs have removed the AfD template, they have a few keen supporters!) JohnCD (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Appears to be a relatively ordinary IM. Without notable supporting attributes, I believe he does not meet the level required for inclusion here. Brittle heaven (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I will have to agree. Unable to find any third-party coverage despite a variety of targeted Google searches. A mention of the self-release in the artist's article will suffice. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs)17:21, 2 January 2010 (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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: ghits look pretty good to me, at a cursory glance. The article is well referenced, and it indicates that he's been part of an award-winning film. I really don't see a compelling case for deletion; in reality, we have far less notable biographies out there which need to be dealt with. Caswell Berry seems fine to me. I should disclose that I know the creator in the real world, and in fact walked him through the steps of creating a new article. —Anonymous DissidentTalk06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2010 in music. A tricky one. I believe the redirect is the best solution for a while, most of the content can be merged to that article. For now. Tone00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the decade has now begun, encyclopaedic events will be recorded here (though at the times of its nomination, perhaps the article should have been deleted...oops..should have double checked the date there). Handschuh-talk to me05:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't seem necessary for the reasons given above. Additionally, none of the statements in the current article are about the decade itself - rather than 2010 - except ones which are unsourced or sourced to references which aren't about the 2010s. I'd advocate redirection to 2010 in music over deletion as a very likely search term, though. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what a stupid article. Electropop is wank. Seriously, clearly not encyclopedia suitable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.225.16 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already, there are signs, this is not crystal. There are two sources so far, and with the 2010s already in progress, there will only be more with each passing week. It does not make sense to delete it, then recreate it a week or two later, as will inevitably happen. Sebwite (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zz above, the decade is here so there's no need to delete something that will be recreated, it's just very young. Recreate when we get around to creating 2011 in music.--MrRadioGuy PT C E 13:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. Because there is significant coverage for a notable artist's future plans, there is no shortage of reliable sources, which prevent WP:CRYSTAL from being invoked. For example, there is already NPR coverage of a Brokeback Mountain opera, even though it will not be premiere for years. MMetro (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Until 2011, this and 2010 in music are redundant. Or at least until there is reliably sourced information about events beyond 2010, which there isn't yet (at least not in the article as currently written). That said, the 2010s are here, so this is not a WP:CRYSTAL issue anymore. And deletion does not seem warranted, since redirection would resolve all the stated issues and the article title is a likely search term. Rlendog (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Not only does it fail WP:CRYSTAL, but in the context (and looking at the previous decade articles) the article is full of WP:RECENT content. It is way too early to define a decade. How notable is X tour/album release by X band in 5 years? That belongs in 2010 in music. Nymftalk/contr.03:42, 6 January 2010 (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.
Unnotable list of unnotable fictional locations of the Primeval series. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. The locations have no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and such a list is not an appropriate component of any television series article. Deprodded by User:DGG with note of "sorry, meant to deprod"? -- Collectonian (talk· contribs) 02:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence is offered for the claims made by the nomination. A brief search soon indicates that the locations for this work are, in fact, notable. See here, for example. No discussion was made at the article's talk page and so the nomination fails WP:BEFORE in several ways. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant series, and the best way of handling the material. The individual locations are perhaps notable, perhaps not, but the individual parts of an article do not have to be. (FWIW, I would oppose making separate articles for them even if they were, as excessive fragmentation). They are sourced by the work itself, which is not only acceptable but preferred for factual description of fiction. It could in principle be merged into the main article, and it might appear basically a question of arrangement,--even so, for major series, dividing it up rather than having one monster article is appropriate. However, it is a much more than just a question of arrangement, when we combine too far, the material often gets removed. The nom apparently intends to do just that, saying "Such a list is not an appropriate component of every fiction series article for major fiction". I do not see on what basis information about the locations and setting is not an appropriate component of the coverage of fiction. I challenge the nom to say why they think otherwise. It is nominations like this which show why we have not been able to reach a compromise: those who would prefer separate articles will compromise on combination ones, but the fiction minimalists refuse even that--and apparently refuse even coverage in the main articles. It is true we would not include this information if we were an encyclopedia designed for 19th century scholars, but that's the opposite type of encyclopedia from Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because extensive minute coverage of the fictional locations of a little 23 episode series are NOT necessary to understanding the basics of the series. Who the hell needs a one paragraph description of what a "home office" is to understand that they have an office they work out of? Most of the locations are one episode locations, and not even "major" locations within the series. The locations are properly mentioned, in context, within the episode and plot descriptions. A list of them is beyond pointless and excessive. People wanting to keep stuff like this is why we can't reach a compromise. Wikipedia is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia. A major series may warrant a single character list split, or an episode list. But not a list of every freaking fictional element it may possibly contain because the fans want to wax on and on with their personal interpretations and beliefs about a series. The main article is just plain out damn pathetic, and barely above a stub, but yes, lets have 15 subarticles anyway because OMG don't you dare take away my right to randomly guess and conduct OR on Wikipedia because its just fiction and who cares. The material is also not appropriate in the main article per the guidelines for a quality television article set out by consensus of those who actually bother to work on them, rather than the "fiction overcoveragers" (if you want to throw around derogatory terms) who just run around screaming keep at every little fiction item that they themselves will never actually improve or deal with. -- Collectonian (talk· contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we have different ideas about the amount of information we think necessary to understanding. I consider this an encyclopedia , not an abridged encyclopedia. (That said, I agree some of the descriptions can be shortened; a great many articles of this sort would benefit from it--but that's just a question of editing. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While neutral about the article's existence, I find the title of the article highly ambiguous and misleading. Would strongly prefer a title such as "List of Primeval (TV series) locations". I honestly thought the article had something to do with other articles such as Primeval forest. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's cool that the series has great locations, but that is not a proper topic for an encyclopedia article. The purpose of an article is for people who don't know about something to get the basic information, and in this case maybe watch the program. One article is enough to do this. No need for articles on the locations, etc. which are no interest except to people who are already fans and they shouldn't be reading about their program in an encyclopedia anyway. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or if kept, rename). The locations just don't come anywhere near notability. There are a bajillion TV, book, movie series. There are bajillion^N fictional locations. Listing them all is a lovely (if sysyphean) idea for a project... somewhere else. Not on this site. If this particular series is special in some way that others are not, such that its locations are somehow notable in themselves, then at least the name of this page needs to be clearer. DewiMorgan (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the individual locations do not come anywhere near notability, and we should not have individual articles on them. That's in fact the whole point of having an article like this, to cover them appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The scope of this article fails WP:N, as well as WP:WAF as there is no significant out-of-universe coverage of this material. Just as we don't need to create an article on my hand just because each of the fingers on it aren't notable, we don't need to have an article on a nonnotable grouping of locations just because each of them aren't notable by themselves. ThemFromSpace03:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable neologisms. Participatory Media is badly named (capitalization), but it cannot be renamed except by a sysop since Participatory media already exists as a redirect to Citizen media (being nominated for deletion too). The fact that this situation has existed for over three years may be an indication of something, that these terms are not generally accepted, that they are vague and confusing and not of encyclopedic interest, or whatever. Though I don't see any urgent need to keep them, I really don't give a damn if one or both are deleted, if they are merged, or if both stay with renaming of the badly named one and cross-linking between the two. If anybody does care, explain how you think this problem should be fixed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because these neologisms are related through the redirect as noted above:
I'm afraid I don't understand why this page is marked for deletion. "Participatory media" is a term that is used quite extensively at MIT and even Stanford, e.g. in courses such as "4.330/4.331 Introduction to Networked Cultures and Participatory Media: Media City" and "Participatory Media: Radical Networks, Tactics, Breakdowns", projects such as "Participatory Media for Youth and Community Development", theses such as "Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement" (by Howard Rheingold, Stanford University) and "Participatory Media and Collaborative Facilitation", etc.
Can "Participatory media" be redirected to here? Alternatively, if capitalization is a problem, can "Participatory Media" be redirected to "Participatory media" (a new page with the contents from "Participatory Media")?
"A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."
Academics do use and papers/books do have the term "participatory media". As mentioned above, "participatory media" is a term that is used at MIT and Stanford.
btw, how do you add the timing here?
From the Citizen Media page: "Many people prefer the term 'participatory media' to 'citizen media' as citizen has a necessary relation to a concept of the nation-state. The fact that many millions of people are considered stateless and often without citizenship limits the concept to those recognised only by governments. Additionally the very global nature of many participatory media initiatives, such as the Independent Media Center, makes talking of journalism in relation to a particular nation-state largely redundant as its production and dissemination do not recognise national boundaries."
Personally, I think the terms "social media" is inadequate. Participatory media are "social media whose value and power derives from the active participation of many people" - not only to read/sample, befriend, chitchat, etc. but also to create, publish, critique, remix, recreate, collaborate, etc.
Please also see new updates that I've made to the "participatory media" entry - adding references to certain things said on "participatory media" by notable people such as Dan Gilmor, Jay Rosen, David Sifry, and Weinberger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, how does it relate to citizen media? What is to be done to fix the redirects mess? Has anybody done anything about that? Obviously not. The what links here pages for the two articles don't show any connections between them.
This is a properly done request for multiple articles; it includes Citizen media as well. Read the bit below the initial reasons; that's the text WP:AfD tells me to put there for multiple articles.
Keep after a bit of searching I think that the term is notable, but I've read the article and I can't really say that I know anymore about what participatory media is. Handschuh-talk to me10:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My inclination is also to keep both articles at this time, per WP:PRESERVE, with an eye to possibly merging in the future. An admin will be needed to move Participatory Media to Participatory media, over the existing redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping both, with no cross-linking and coordination between them, is not a reasonable option. Better to delete both, and if in the future somebody want's to start over again, fine. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's reasonable enough as a stopgap measure. If nothing gets done in a reasonable time it should be reviewed again. Part of the problem with these neologisms is that while there may indeed be some usage as presented in the articles, others might call it by different names, or use the same terminology with different meanings. Just be sure that the closing admin moves Participatory Media to Participatory media over the redirect. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We should have articles about concepts, not jargon. There seems to be salvageable material in this one, even though it badly overlaps with other articles as indicated above. Deciding how to divide a topic between multiple articles is generally a hopeless task at AfD. Perhaps WP:WikiProject Journalism can help organize this mess? Pcapping13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both for now - I agree with Pcap above that this is not really an issue to be solved by AfD. Both these phrases ('citizen media' and 'participatory media') have been fairly widely used and probably deserve articles - even if they are neologisms, they're notable ones. I agree that they cover very similar topics, and the articles are largely unreferenced, but those are issues to be solved by improving and merging them (if necessary), not deletion. Robofish (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable voice actor. Probably enough to pass db-a7, so I've listed him here, but I can find nothing significant about him and his thin IMDb listing, as Brian McFadden (III), is here. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Hey, thanks for finding the video, that was fairly funny. I hope for his sake he becomes more notable, but I don't believe a 5 1/2 minute Letterman appearance meets WP:ENT's standard of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GB Fan. It should be noted that there is a Washington Post article being cited within this biographical article. ...only it's not really about Brian Scott McFadden at all. It's a passing mention of one of his shows. I am endorsing deletion based on the lack of non-trivial coverage about this individual from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable person who, it appears, was an obscure local mayor in the 19th century. The only listed reference includes him in two sentences on page 30, and is certainly not about him. There are only 21 G-hits for d'Agier, each and every one of them Wiki mirrors of this article, and zero hits for "Henri d'Agier," which one would think would be more likely. There are no articles under either name on the French Wikipedia. Article is orphaned as well, and links only to the small commune of which he was a mayor. Fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Prod declined under the uninformative "Possibly a notable figure in his area." Ravenswing 19:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with all of the above. If he was "a notable figure in his area" there should be sources to support that, and one would have to be quite notable in a small local area to pass WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. I think the smaller the area, the harder it should be to pass. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Quite basic; "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" and "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It has long been held that multiplereliable sources are necessary even in cases where the sources are, as WP:BIO holds, about the subject. Ravenswing 22:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The town has a current population of 1902. according to WP:POLITICIAN, "Mayors" without distinction in size of the town are considered to meet the criterion--I think his position was more or less similar to that. There may well be more: I do not see how anyone could consider absence of Ghits relevant for 19th century figures; even gbooks is extremely weak in French sources--and for good measure they have just been ordered by a French court to remove the few French sources they do have. This needs to be checked for possible additional notability in the appropriate print sources. But the position is verified by a print source. WP:V does not require multiple sources, just a RS, and a print local history is a RS. Ravenswing, you are confusing it with WP:N GNG--which at the moment he does not meet, he meets one of the alternative criteria.
The consensus has long been that WP:V requires more than one source, and furthermore sources about the subject, not passing mentions on a single page in another work. That being said, it remains unambiguous: a lack of sources about the subject doesn't mean that we keep the article anyway in the hopes that somehow, someday, something will turn up. It means that the article cannot stand. Ravenswing 21:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced the article, cited written sources rather than a dubious online source. The article topic is a gentleman and local dignitary who performed notable acts. I cannot help the absence of information on a nineteenth century person but cannot accept that because you do not consider him notable he isn't. This person existed as the source, an historical account of the person (which includes other local dignitaries of the area). One could find additional sources at the departmental archives in [[Caen] but living in the UK I'm able to do so (documents are probably only available for consultation). The article fits the criteria set out in Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources, no source is considered unreliable as it is not self-published or paid for and the authors have been published elsewhere. Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline is followed. Put {{notability}} rather than a speedy deletion as other should be found on the subject. Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians is also respected.
You are answering a number of questions I never posed, and not addressing the problems I have. First off, WP:BIO requires more than one source. Secondly, WP:V places the burden of producing such sources on the editor who wishes to retain an article, and doesn't magically exempt articles just because such sources might not be easy to find. Thirdly, the GNG is not followed; it explicitly requires "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." While I only have high school French, reading over the one source you supply has a few sentences about d'Agier's existence and the photostat of a document he signed; that's not substantial coverage. Fourthly, he fails WP:POLITICIAN; I'm not sure how I had the notion that he was the mayor of the commune, but the article doesn't actually claim that - all it says is that he was a local landowner, and what criterion does that meet? Finally, what makes this guy notable? That the guy got in a land dispute? Those are a dime a hundred in the 19th century. Anything? Ravenswing 19:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you'd read the article, tha land dispute is not one of his. The land dispute existed between three communes; Houlgate, Dives-sur-Mer and Gonneville-sur-Mer. Had this been a simple exchange of territory between local authorities or private owners I wouldn't say it's worth its own article but this dispute was between three communes/local councils, one of which newly formed and related to vast space, including an estuary and a (then) royal charted harbour. When I first joined WP it was understanding that article do not have to be long and if a topic is sufficiently described in the article, a few lines or a paragraph are sufficient for the article to be valid. I realise I omitted Algier's mayoral post and event left a grotesque spelling mistake which I've both added. GNG is followed as the depth of coverage is substantial and complete and a source, itself referencing communal archives is quoted, would you prefer it if I added my source's sources, it sure would add about ten of them, none of them on-line but published and legal... I won't type ten pages worth on a notable man if a paragraph is sufficient. Perhaps I ought to go to Houlgate's archives myself and dig something up but that could be considered original research. I am sure Caen's departmental archives will have records of Algier's tenure. WP:BIO is respected as he is a notary, being mayor he was sworn in by the prefect of Calvados and receiving the honour of working for the people, it also asks for one or more sources which I have and can produce, if you want more, I'll get you more. Captain Scarletand the Mysterons11:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, the same three that have been noted, all about Houlgate. To quote from WP:GNG, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." The second reference is a passing mention. The third is a name on a list. The first appears to be a passing mention. Do you have any sources that discuss the subject in detail, as GNG requires? Ravenswing 20:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: I am leaning towards a "no consensus" closure here, as Captain Scarlet's last argument has not been replied to. But I really think it would be beneficial to have a little bit more time to sort out the notability of the sources. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't responded because AfD's a place for concise discussion, not for slanging matches, and I wouldn't be saying I hadn't already: that village mayors are a dime a thousand, that small-town land disputes are not remotely close to notable, that reliable sources discussing the subject in detail haven't been produced, and the Captain's premise that sources might exist in governmental archives bespeaks, of course, original research and cannot be contemplated. If you're interested in more voices, I just gave a halloo over on the Politics WikiProject to see what they think. Ravenswing 04:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there seems to very few articles on small-town mayors (even modern ones) even though I would think that they ususally qualify under WP:POLITICIAN, and there are obvious difficulties with providing as many detailed sources on this one, since it is from some time ago. Handschuh-talk to me05:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being a small-town mayor is not such an obvious claim to notability as to guarantee a person a Wikipedia article. If more sources about the subject are found later, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90(talk)20:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears to me that a person of equivalent notability today would almost certainly be deleted without controversy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind21:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I mostly agree with the nominator and Andrew Lenahan. No new sources have been presented during this AfD, and the subject doesn't qualify for a separate article by either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, even though judging him just by the latter may be a little unfair given that a lot less press existed back then. He may have a certain claim to be a "part of the enduring historical record", but there's just not enough coverage of him to justify a separate article. Pcapping13:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am puzzled as to why this has been relisted a second time. Most of the "keep" arguments are completely spurious, or completely unrelated to Wikipedia policy, or both. For example "according to WP:POLITICIAN, "Mayors" without distinction in size of the town are considered to meet the criterion" is simply not true, as can be verified by reading WP:POLITICIAN. Then we have "being mayor he was sworn in by the prefect of Calvados and receiving the honour of working for the people", which does not relate in the least to Wikipedia's notability criteria. More than once we have words to the effect "I expect more sources exist, but I am not in a position to find them". Unfortunately the onus is on those who want a "keep" to establish that adequate sources exist: guessing that they probably do is not sufficient. Also even if, as suggested, further information exists in Caen's departmental archives, this is not independent coverage: of course all local governments have records of people who have worked for them, notable or not. At present only one source is cited, and while I do not have access to this source, Ravenswing has, and tells us the source "has a few sentences about d'Agier's existence and the photostat of a document he signed". In short, there is no evidence at all that d'Agier comes anywhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2010 (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. As always there is no prejudice against recreation in the event that sources are found for any of these subjects. Shereth22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they are (which is, frankly, unlikely) then the articles can be recreated. But they have clearly been created as part of a series celebrating the military history of Wisconsin, not because they are notable in any other way. They were obviously created in good faith, but simply do not reach the Wikipedia notability bar. It is incumbent on the creator to state why they are notable, and the reason he has stated (being a recipient of the DSC) is not sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the sources, online and some offline. The only who might be vaguely notable is Krause, as CO of a battalion in the 505th PIR. I'll check my sources to see if he's mentioned non-trivially, but the rest are definitely non-notable as far as I can see. Skinny87 (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very reluctant delete. I hate the fact that some felon who made a single between arrests that charted 199 out of 200 for 1 week on Billboard is considered notable to Wikipedia while men who actually DID something in their lives are not considered important enough, but that is the state of affairs here. They fail under WP:MILPEOPLE. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2010 (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.
While trying to improve this rather pitiful article about a quite famous phrase it came to my surprise that I failed to find any sources which discuss the phrase in a reasonably scholarly way. At best, only the source of the catchphrase is mentioned. As a result, when original research removed, the article is nothing but a dicdef plus a bunch of citations from primary sources. The previous nomination ended in "keep", but none of the keeper's arguments were based on wikipedia policy. "A known and notable phrase", "Very culturally significant" - these arguments work well to transwiki to wiktionary and wikiquote (if missing) and merge in Borg (Star Trek). I understand that that this nom will cause the indignation from trekkies, sorry. - Altenmann >t02:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I hate to do this since I expected to vote delete before reading the article. However the expression has a life of its own and the sourcing is good enough for a pop-culture article that will hurt or offend no one and will be of interest to some. I am sure there are people who want to know more about this expression. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- probably could use a re-write, but it serves us better to have the article, and have it here, as opposed to deletion or trans-wiki. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article in its current form isn't even that bad. Sure it could be improved, and it most certainly will be, but I don't see any justification for deletion. Handschuh-talk to me06:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please understand me correctly: I am a huge scifi fan, I understand the cultural value of the phrase and had all intentions to expand the article. However during search, to my disappointment, I came to conclusion that there are to reliable sources available to write a decent article. - Altenmann >t09:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not a trekker but found this article useful, since I wasn't already familiar with it's content. I wondered where the phrase came from and now I feel somewhat enlightened. I appreciated the details. Best regards. -Anonymous, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.227.51.22 (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — 87.227.51.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and Redirect to Borg (Star Trek), where instances might be better handled in a footnote rather than article body, and the contextual statements aren't really needed. I like ST too, but despite some notability of the phrase, there's not enough to say about it to expand, lacking the significant coverage of WP:N; and it's basically a WP:DICDEF or directly analogous to one as noted. Many catchphrases redirect to their source (e.g. I'm a doctor, not a ... to Leonard McCoy, which is sensible and there's no shame in that. Transwiki to Wikiquote and to Memory Alpha, which surprisingly doesn't seem to have it. Шизомби (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Schizombie. Much like Altenmann I feel this ought to have enough sourcing for a full article, but that just doesn't appear to be the case. A section in Borg (Star Trek) mentioning the phrase (perhaps without a list of its every utterance) and its cultural signifcance seems appropriate. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots more hits in Google Books, including a book of poetry ISBN 1857544048; Title Resistance is futile?: an existential phenomenological exploration of psychotherapists' experiences of #encountering resistance' in psychotherapy, Author Michael Worrell, Publisher City University, 2002; Title "Resistance is futile": a poststructuralist analysis of the international (education for) development discourse Author Greta S. Shultz Publisher University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1999; and lots more. I know this isn't Tribblepedia, but it's useful to properly source this bit of popular culture. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm inclined to see the content kept either here or merged to the Borg (Star Trek) article. The assertion that it's used by the media is not appropriately sourced: the pair of articles use the phrase in the headline, but what Wikipedia needs is an actual third-party assertion that headlines like that are, in fact, allusions to the Borg, and not some oddball coincidence. Perhaps the phrase itself originated elsewhere, and Star Trek's own appropriation of it -- while well known -- is not the "origin story" Wikipedia should offer up. Anyhow, I've removed some of the crufty primary source stuff better suited for wikiquote. --EEMIV (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some few minutes after you wrote that, a source was added that not only links political rhetoric to fiction, but has more content in it from which this article can be expanded, including the quite pertinent observation that from the evidence of the show's own storyline, resistance is apparently not futile.
It's a pity that the content about resistance being useless was edited from the article, because that points to a fair amount of material that deals with the idea, in psychological warfare, of convincing an enemy that resistance is useless. And yes, there's a source linking the twain. It's page 727 of the Yale book of quotations (ISBN 0300107986). Uncle G (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resistance is futile: keep. There are sufficient sources, as demonstrated by the current article and by Uncle G, to support an article. A merge, if deemed necessary, can be discussed outside the context of this AfD. PowersT15:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep. The condition is that the article should be expanded to examine the possible etymology of the phrase, i.e., previous instances where the phrase was used that may have been where the TNG writers picked it up from. Doctor Who and Space 1999 were two examples mentioned in the talk page. If the article is not expanded in that manner, then it doesn't really serve any purpose as a separate article that couldn't be accomplished in Borg (Star Trek), and in that case I would suggest a merge/redirect. --DachannienTalkContrib03:22, 5 January 2010 (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.
Clearly fails to meet notability criteria in that it has no indication of significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Nom on behalf of the above IP. RMHED (talk) 02:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is less the quality of the article than the notability of its subject, but you've still got most of a week to see what you can do. My suggestion is you focus on the latter. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My brother happens to be Sean.Thomson (mentioned in the article, otherwise I wouldn't even have known this article existed), and he's OK with the article being deleted. He doesn't run the site, but we do have one of mods saying "sure, delete it." I would like to point out that there doesn't appear to be anything that meets WP:RS standards that indicates it's notability. No magazines, newspapers, or anything like that mention it, so even if it is the largest Christian guitar tab database, it is technically not notable because noone has written about it. Pulling up the track record demonstrating that it is the largest and most visited website of its kind would be original research and does not justify the existance of the article by itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. As mentioned above, even one of the mods has acknowledged that they don't meet the guidelines and is OK with deletion. Cocytus[»talk«]23:50, 6 January 2010 (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.
Prod removed by creator. Fictional character from an unauthorized continuation which exists only on the web. Pretty much fails any kind of inclusion criteria. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC) Nom on behalf of the above IP. RMHED (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a list of HP minor characters. The minor mention makes it canon, but a separate article is not notable. When more information from a canonical source is provided, then an article may be up for consideration. MMetro (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, NOT redirect - as written, this is not about the canonical but extremely minor character (whose name we don't know for sure), but rather a vanity insert of material from a piece of minor fanfiction. --Orange Mike | Talk00:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. There is some content althought not a great deal. At the very least is is a sort of dab page or topic list. The article is a notable topic and serves to fill a gap in article hierarchy:
Putting a page that is a notable topic and has at least some content [up for deletion](oops - had left this out) is a waste of editors time. Surely, given the amount of interest in climate change, editors should adding info about the topic not trying to get them deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has no content of its own, it is just an index of links. That is what categories are for, not articles. It is clearly not a dab page. Just because someone might add some content to an article at some stage in the future does not mean it should sit around contentless for now. Brilliantine (talk) 03:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It now has one solitary sentence of content, which does not imply any kind of importance to suggest this should have stature as an independent article. Brilliantine (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject, in particular if you views it as a an issue handled political and not just a physical phenomenon divided into articles by political borders. Tomas e (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly KEEP, climate change has a global effect, but it is caused by countries. It belongs to a series of articles about climate change by country, we need more (one for every country), so I suggest a Taskforce or WikiProject to create and enhance them. Climate change in Alberta can be merged into this article and, when convenient, be also enhanced.--Nopetro (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate articles for each country, showing their policies and whatnot, is perfectly reasonable. Quite encyclopedic. No reason to delete this. DreamFocus12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. However, I see no point in automatically creating stubs for every country and these articles as potential content forks should not be created until they have sufficient independent content to stand alone, this is not an AfD issue. Polargeo (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I fail to see the potential for any content here that can't be covered in Regional effects of global warming and the various articles dealing with environmentalism in Sweden. Having thousands of sub-articles for instances such as this damages the readability and usefulness of Wikipedia. Brilliantine (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. Surely no-one's played the 'Pokemon Test' card since 2006 at least. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a sensible keep rationale. If such merging would make the article/s an unwieldy mess (doubtful for this article given the lack of content to merge), it might be appropriate to consider whether the information - not that there is really any at present in this case - would be appropriate for a wikipedia article at all. Remember, there is plenty of space for a good general article on environmentalism on each of the mentioned countries, if one doesn't exist already.
Yes, I know the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument is not valid in an Afd but I just liked the picture!! Yes, there is "space" and definitely a need for a general article on the environment and environmentalism. Some do exist. See Category:Environment by country. However, those articles should exist as well as this article. It is notable and there is more than enough verifiable info on the topic. We need to keep in mind the hierarchy and notability of topics before throwing them up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even though the effects on the environment may be covered better in regional pages, there are also political and economic considerations that can only really be addressed in these sort of country specific articles. Even if the article in its current form doesn't do what it ought to optimally, it shouldn't be deleted, it should be improved. Handschuh-talk to me06:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic should be expanded, not deleted. By the way, how many Climate change in... articles have been nominated for deletion in the last 24 hours? I stumbled upon Climate change in Canada an hour ago, and now Sweden... Bouchecl (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The current version of the article is not in the very best shape, but the amount of Swedish media coverage and political attention of the subject means that there is definitely sufficient material to have an article on the subject. Tomas e (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate articles for each country, showing their policies and whatnot, is perfectly reasonable. Quite encyclopedic. No reason to delete this. And certainly if you found someone who could speak their language and search through the news sources, you'd have plenty of coverage this. DreamFocus12:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Separate articles for each country also seems reasonable to me. Whether climate change is happening or not is a separate issue from having information about what actions are being taken in each country with climate change as the reason or with other motivating factors, such as substantially reduced dependence on oil from unreliable sources. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At present this article is completely incorrectly named. It seems almost exclusively about emmission policy in Sweden and nothing whatsoever to to with climate change in Sweden. However, this sort of issue will never be sorted out by AfD where a load of people not involved in these articles will simply vote "keep it is notable" This is not a deletion issue and details can be sorted out on the article's talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete unimportant and no attention outside the author and a limited set of users. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep RBF Morph was born during a research project for company involved in aerodynamic optimisation because at that time they weren't able to use available solutions (2007). Now it's the first tool available for CFD users that uses Radial Basis Functions for mesh morphing. Radial Basis Function theory is a very important topic well funded and established on the mathematical point of view (even if the information on wikipedia are poor); however practical use for industrial problems it is still quite limited; RBF Morph is innovative and it has been awarded for this reason: it brings the tecnology beyond the academic examples exposed in research papers! Considering the deletion proposal I can confirm that Radial Basis Functions and RBF Morph are relevant for a very small community of engineers and researchers. However even a small community should deserve respect; the numerical tools used during the design of components are important for their success and the benefit of having good products is relevant for everybody! MEB71 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC) — MEB71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Have you seen the proliferation of banners on this page? Looks like a vendetta to me. It makes no sense at all to call for deletion before people have had time to respond to some of the others. There are pages that hjave carried improvement banners for 5 years. With software for new technique like this it may be some time before a qualified user discovers the page and beats it into shape. Not reasonable to expect that to happen overnight. But that does not make it un-notable.--Brunnian (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; the maintenance templates (other than the AfD and Notability templates) are a seperate issue, and yes, the templates do not prove non-notability, just as a lack of maintenance templates on this article would not make its subject notable. WuhWuzDat13:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all I meant by the last sentence was that failure to re-write is evidence of a small user base, not evidence of un-notability, and that having a small user base did not disquality it either. I wasn't trying to conflate the number of banners and notability.--195.137.63.170 (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)--Brunnian (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested prod. Improperly referenced article about a 13-year-old rapper whose notability is sketchy at best (claims to have rejected a deal with a major label without specifying which one), and the article sounds very promotional, not unlike Baby Triggy, which was speedied twice for that reason. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure spam. He may have a bright future, but it's the present and past that concerns us. I can't see any indication of notability. The only reference is at lastfm, and I quote from the page: "Registered users can edit this page". Nuff said? Peridon (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. not having a good set of reliabvle sources sets this aside from say teh tyoung tories so we can't say that political parties should all have an article on their youth wing. This clearly fails the GNG so not only is notability not met but verifiabilty seems an issue as well. SpartazHumbug!05:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The article looks like a "selective merge" to me into United Kingdom Independence Party. I was surprised to see that the article was founded, per its history, in August 2005 (a notably different Wikipedia). It's also interesting that that date contradicts the official "launch" of the sub-institution in the current article. I also see that in over four years existence "no one cared" to translate the article to another language Wikipedia. I note the article is referenced in the See also section of the parent article. The what links here is sparse but interesting. I note the article made it to a Navbar. All in all, I'd estimate the article is actually worthy of a one paragraph sub-section in the article of the parent organization. It would be nice if their web site comes back up so at least there is a primary source proving this institution's existence... —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is about the youth organisation of a major political party - a political party that came second in the European Parliament elections and has a high profile. I note that the youth organisations of Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have articles, as do the youth organisations of more minor parties such as the Greens and RESPECT. I'll accept that the article, like the organisation it covers, could do with work, but I do think that, particularly because of its association with a major political party, the subject is notable and the article should be kept, though obviously I respect the decision of the Wikipedia community should my view not be shared. TomPhil16:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree largely with Aladdin Sane's comments above. Young Independence is barely noteworthy of a Wikipedia entry, if it ever was, and anything of interest can and should be merged into the UKIP article in my opinion. Alex McKee (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is poor but the subject of the article is certainly noteworthy, being the youth wing of quite a large political party. I also agree with Phil that consistency with the coverage of other parties requires us to have an article about UKIP's youth wing. The strengths or failings of the organisation itself should not affect that basic notability, though they could of course be reflected in the article. I think the answer is to keep this article and improve it to meet Wikipedia quality standards. Twilde (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. As I said in the talk page: "This article is a mess! Is confuses Gallaecians with modern Galicians, doesn't cite sources, its full with POV and speculations, and has original research of dubious quality!" Furthermore it s solely based on a specific interpretation of mythological sources. Even its title is POV (as it takes the celticity of Gallaecia for granted). No reason to keep and no way to save it. All pertinent info is in Prehistoric Iberia. The Ogre (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I am very interested in this general topic. I recently read an article advocating introducing Tasmanian Devils to the mainland to combat feral cats and rabbits. However this article has no sources and most of it is not even about the topic, but about present problems. A good article on the movement naming names and citing sources would be welcome. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus at this time. Almost none of the arguments in this discussion - on either side - are very well grounded in policy. Subjective statements to the effect of "actor worth knowing" and "forgettable television show" add no value in determining whether or not our guidelines for inclusion have been satisfied. I strongly urge those arguing to keep this article to address the concerns regarding sourcing, otherwise a subsequent AfD may not have a very favorable outcome. Shereth22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He does better than a lot of the actors who come up for deletion with three or four roles as "Clerk" or "Tom" in random TV episodes, but looking through his résumé in light of WP:ENT I just don't see "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." His role in The White Shadow is arguably significant; even though IMDb lists him eleventh in the credits he was in 23 of the 55 episodes. Since then, though, it's been nothing but one-offs, low-billed roles in not-very-notable movies, and so on. The article claims a "recurring" role in NYPD Blue, but that looks like a small part and it only "recurred" once. I wish this guy luck in his return to the screen, but as of now he has "very minor actor" written all over him. Also, as a bit of advice to the article creator, repeatedly removing deletion templates, blanking the AfD page, and the like won't stop this discussion from taking place but will make you look worse. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - assuming that the information from IMdB can be verified, he was in three TV series as a recurring character. That's barely enough for me. I am old enough to recall Salami and his cousin. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not pass WP:ENT. Simply "recurring" is not enough to constitute a major part, unless there is evidence that it was an important recurring role. Such evidence doesn't seem to exist, particularly since his "recurring" roll in NYPDB seems to have recurred once. Ironholds (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian. For what it's worth, I also take issue with the nominator's POV statement that The White Shadow was "a totally forgettable tv series." One's personal taste in TV is not an argument for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Congratulations. You're the first person to nominate an article for deletion during this decade. You will receive one American as a prize. Mandsford (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
first keep vote of the first afd of the decade, albeit a weak one. A couple of the sources in the article, [19] and [20] appear to be directly about the gentleman in question, which gives an indication that he passes the GNG. Article needs a re-write, to be sure, but it looks like there's enough there that he's at least stub-worthy. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - The only content is that he was fined, and this is WP:NOTNEWS and the story had no lasting effects, and not reported on by the broad media. That aside it fails WP:BLP on almost every level. Mkdwtalk00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is very obvious to anyone fluent in Spanish language who has had the chance to read, watch, or hear Mr. Márquez. The article, if given enough time, will very probably grow to sufficient dimensions attesting his notability --but only if left alone (that is, not destroyed) by someone with dubious motives. In other words, is Wikipedia an universal encyclopedia, or just a national reference at the service of U.S. values alone? --AVM (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (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.
Has been in 10 films according to IMDB entry, but I am not sure that the films are themselves sufficiently notable (and therefore would give her notability that way). The article itself does not show sufficient notability, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 of the points that the article tried really hard to make is that the actress was in Ang Lee's Lust, Caution. Well, after doing some research, her role in the movie was minor at best. In the movie, she played as "萧太太" (Mrs. 萧), her total air time was less than 15mins. She is a regular Chinese actress, that's all. WP:N has not be established. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Her name appears in thousands of different headlines in Google News Search. [21]. Prima facie evidence of non-trivial coverage in WP:RS required by WP:N.
And furthermore the nominator needs to review WP:BEFORE. Every time he finds a China-related WP:STUB that's not in his pet area of ancient Chinese history, he runs to AfD without being bothered to perform even the most cursory search for sources. Non-Chinese-speaking editors take it on good faith that because he speaks Chinese, he might have actually been bothered to look for sources in Chinese prior to AfD ... which clearly has not happened here or in dozens of other cases. cab (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (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 the fundamental issue of notability has not been addressed. There is no prejudice against recreating this article if sources can be provided to satisfy the notability concerns. Shereth22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manufacturing a metal pole that ended up in a museum because of it's connection to a Seinfeld episode appears to be this company's only claim to fame notability. This is not sufficient to meet WP:CORP. Not clear how this company is notable. contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 16:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid rationale for deletion; plausible search term; "claim to fame" not an appropriate criterion for evaluating notability of businesses. Encyclopedias should be encyclopedic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rational has been updated slightly. It is not clear from the article how it meets guidelines for inclusion. No claim of notability outside of a (weak) link to a Seinfeld episode is made.--RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think being actively engaged in the industry since 1850 is an indication of notability. The Festivus poles are a bit of lagniappe; there are a lot of nonglamorous businesses that meet the GNG, and shouldn't be judged by celebrity-oriented standards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability at all. 'Encyclopedic' doesn't mean 'include everything', as so many editors seem all too keen to prove. --80.192.1.168 (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A long standing company in an industry for this much time is probably notable, but it would be good to see a serioussearch for numerbers and the like, because market share is an appropriate criterion. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial coverage, such as product launches, does not provide evidence of notability in accordance with WP:CORP. This article is little more than a public relations piece, which fails WP:SPAM. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
System demonstrated does not appear to meet standards of notability. Article puts forth a concept that is largely if not completely rejected -- restoring teeth that exhibit vertical/oblique fractures that extend onto the root surface. Sources are terrible -- they consist of Dr. Nankali, the inventor and article creator, promoting his own invention, and the few minor awards it has won. Nothing -- not intracoronal nor extracoronal restorations, not endodontic therapy, not implant dentistry -- can claim 100% success; the fact that it states this in the article makes it read more like an infomercial than anything else. Primary intra-article links direct to pages written in a foreign language, dubious support if that's all that can be mustered. Three great diagrams, but they probably come from the patent application/master's thesis, so I'd expect them to be wonderful; the photo, on the other hand, looks like a still shot from a video. Sources are 2/4 from the inventor/article creator and references are 6/10 from him as well, and there is nothing published in a well respected, international journal of endodontics, prosthodontics or general dentistry. Seems like complete self-promotion, not to mention how poorly written it is, suggesting you it was put together as swiftly as possible without much thought. DRosenbach(Talk | Contribs)15:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question can anyone clarify want is the relevant content of the two page cited in , Oxford Handbook of Clinical Dentistry? DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is clear consensus that the article should not be deleted, but there is no agreement about whether this list should be merged to another one. Complicating things is a merge opinion that cites with favor an editor who wants to keep the lists separate, and one who wants to merge them. Discussions on a possible merge can of course continue on the talk page. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is simply a long list of creatures from the Lilo & Stitch franchise, with little encyclopedic value or notability; mainly fancruft, and violates WP:NOT. Additional problems besides that of notability includes a long-standing lack of sources as well as a primarily in-universe writing style. KaySL (talk) 14:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing much has changed from the last AFD, so I'll just restate my Keep last time:
I'll more or less repeat what I said two years ago: The television series episode plots center specifically around this list of experiments, so removing the page will remove a large chunk of information pertaining to the show. The list is different than the List of Lilo & Stitch: The Series episodes as the episode list contains airdates and shorter experiment appearance lists. As for the claim of fancruft, I have strived long and hard to specifically keep it free of speculative list cruft (though I admit that I'm getting rather tired of doing so). Unfortunately, Disney made maintaining the list extremely difficult when they decided it would be fun to list the name of every experiment at the end of the last movie (Leroy & Stitch). So the names are available, but unless Disney produces more cartoons, the descriptions will have to remain blank as no information is available. All the information is from the shows or movies and speculative descriptions are removed almost immediately. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: shouldn't the content from this article be migrated and merged with the episode list then, if this article is so integral to the episodes? Granted, it wouldn't be a quick task, but as it stands, the actual content-to-length ratio is very low. KaySL (talk) 14:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - if she is so famous, I think I would have an easier time finding sources. Nothing on Google News, and good old-fashioned Google search is turning up almost exclusively social networking/blog types of sites. Thus, significant reliable 3rd party coverage, as dictated by the notability guidelines, appears to be lacking. Cocytus[»talk«]21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per WP:NOT. The term exists at en.wiktionary as an Indian name, and seems to exist in several of the foreign language projects. If anyone wants a copy of this to add there, I'll be happy to oblige. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done15:20, 8 January 2010 (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.
Two non-notable theories created by a non-notable scholar (see Google, for instance). Only source appears to be Meng's book itself, which according to the articles' creator was just published this month. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly keep. The work does get some positive comments on this blog. The blog seems to be by an emeritus professor, so I guess that is quite important. If we do keep something, I would suggest it is an article on the work as a whole. i.e. Both of the indices and the thesis which used the indices. Having two separate articles, one on each index, seems pointless. I would suggest naming the article after the thesis. However, "Origins of attitudes to animals" sounds like a general article title, rather than a piece about a specific work. Perhaps the article should be called "JM animal attitude indices". Yaris678 (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Could find no coverage in Google News. Google Scholar only showed the author of the thesis the Index is based on. Regarding a Google search, the following results [22] show either Wikipedia – Wikipedia mirror sites or self-interest web/blog sites for the author. Without any additional coverage from independent sources it does not meet any of our notability guidelines for inclusion. JAAGTalk00:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I think that is an inaccurate characterisation - Tomo Cesen is notable for making (or controversially claiming to have made) many groundbreaking achievements in alpinism. I personally do not know much about him, but he is mentioned on several existing pages on wikipedia. I followed a link from one of them and saw there was not yet an article about him so added what I knew. Keithalexander (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: True, but what detail can be gathered is insufficient to justify a dedicated article on him, and the 'controversial' qualification to his claims seems to indicate even more of a lack of credibility. In any case, so far as I can tell, Česen fails to meet any of the standards laid down in WP:BIO. Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. KaySL (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Enough coverage from third party sources [26] to count as significant. I do not believe we require only coverage testifying to a man/womens outstanding character to be counted for inclusion. Only that it be significant coverage. If we were only suppose to use references that showed the individual in good-standing, I guess Jack The Ripper piece would have to be deleted. Happy New Year. JAAGTalk23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfD retraction; the above points are perfectly valid, though I feel you misinterpreted my comments; I wasn't saying that the article shouldn't exist merely because he's not in good ethical standing, but that all he seems notable for is the one act of perpetrating a hoax, which doesn't appear to be that notable in its own right. However, as the consensus appears to be to keep the article, I see no reason to further prolong the AfD process, and am perfectly happy to withdraw my AfD nomination. Happy New Year to you too. KaySL (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Although I vehemently disagree with the interpretation of GNG that is being applied here, I can't see continuing this AfD much longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted article. Speedy was declined. Has been tagged for notability for over a year. Simply, the artists fails WP:MUSICBIO. He's never had a charting song and lacks coverage in the media. The authors provides a one off article in the NYT, but I don't believe that is enough. The article was from nearly 2 years ago, talking about how this artist is hoping be the "next big thing". 2 years later, he still hasn't charted. The rest of the sources fail WP:RS. Aside from the one article, there isn't really coverage by the media. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed that. Can you explain how a one time piece in the NYT, 2 years ago, about how the guy has not become successful yet make him notable? Particularly when we see that 2 years later, he still hasn't don't anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When did One article in a reliable source become sufficient coverage to meet GNG? As for lack of success, for musicians, they need some success. He're released no albums (let alone charted). Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though I'd love to say Delete on the grounds that the article is a load of rubbish, unfortunately it does seem that the subject is moderately notable, therefore I have to say Keep. Deb (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The New York Times article is very significant coverage, thus satisfying WP:GNG. As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said, "notable" and "successful" are not the same thing. Someone can be "unsuccessful" and still be "notable."--Oakshade (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GNG says reliable sources. It points out that multiple sources are preferred. You folks are saying that a single article, just one article, in a RS is sufficient to make a person notable. Doesn't that strike anyone besides me as not being the intent of GNG? I can't believe that the intent of GNG was to say that everyone who is the subject of an article in any newspaper is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of GNG is that a topic has received significant coverage from reliable sources. As to your erroneous requirement that sources must be "multiple," WP:GNG states: "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources" and as you admitted, "Multiple sources are generally preferred," not "required." The quality of the source The New York Times is undeniable and the depth of coverage is sufficient. Of course it uses the plural "sources", so as not to confuse editors to seem coverage is restricted to one source. If more than one source was required, it would explicitly state "multiple sources."--Oakshade (talk) 03:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, did you even read what I wrote? I very clearly said "It points out that multiple sources are preferred". For you to claim that I stated an "erroneous requirement" can only be explained by lack of attention or knowingly making a false accusation. I'll leave it to you to decide which it was. I never made the claim that multiple sources was a requirement. I said PREFERRED (maybe in caps you'll see it this time) very clearly. So let me ask those voting keep a very direct question: Are you stating that in your view a single article in a newspaper always makes someone notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for anybody else, but I'd say a featured profile in what's arguably the most significant newspaper in the United States at the very least gives rise to a presumption of notability (as would a similar article in the leading newspaper in other major national markets); and in the absence of any substantive arguments otherwise, the presumption should stand. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been what you meant Oakshade (I'll AGF), but it is not what you said in your keep !vote. You said "One article by a reliable source giving significant coverage has always been sufficient coverage to meet GNG". If we apply what you said, anyone covered in an article by any reliable source newspaper, which almost every local newspaper passes, would pass GNG and be notable enough for an article. For both of you, the talk about which paper it is in is really a smokescreen. Either a source is reliable or it's not. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Niteshade mentioned this on my talk page. Though not my subject, I think Niteshade is partially right: one article is not normally enough for WP:GNG; however, it is if it is in a exceptionally reliable source--reliable not just for accuracy, but for responsible editorial policies about covering what is important. I would think the NYT is an example of one such--and most especially when they devote a full feature article to the subject as they did here. DGG ( talk ) 16:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Niteshift....lol. Anyway, I'll share what I just said on your page here before I close what appears to be a keep. First, let's use WP:MUSICBIO as an example. Criteria #1 is that the artist be the subject of multiple published works. That criteria seems totally illogical if we are to follow the idea that a single published work is sufficient under GNG. Second, the idea of a single work being sufficient under GNG in this case seems to be at odds with WP:BLP1E. If 10 different reporters, from 10 different papers write about someone doing something, we delete it under BLP1E (a policy I support). In the case of the Cash Prince, the article is about no event, yet you feel it falls under GNG. If we apply GNG in the same manner to regular bios, most should never be deleted because they were covered in a reliable source. The fact that it is one event shouldn't matter because they get in under GNG. Lastly, as I also said, this appears to be WP:ILIKEIT once removed. The fact that just one reporter (from which paper should have no bearing on it, reliable is reliable) from one paper decided he/she has enough interest in the artist, the person automatically becomes notable under this application of GNG. I find it very difficult to believe this was what was intended when GNG was written. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2010 (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.
Yes, there is "space" and definitely a need for a general article on the environment and environmentalism. Some do exist. See Category:Environment by country. However, those articles should exist as well as this article. It is notable and there is more than enough verifiable info on the topic. We need to keep in mind the hierarchy and notability of topics before throwing them up for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must be logged in to post a comment.