| Revision as of 22:58, 10 May 2007 editLDBot (talk | contribs)1,950 editsm Creating new AFD day | Revision as of 23:22, 10 May 2007 edit undoWJBscribe (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users40,293 edits Relist 2 from May 3Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| <!-- Add new entries to the bottom of this page --> | <!-- Add new entries to the bottom of this page --> | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Támar}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rhinelandic}} | |||
Revision as of 23:22, 10 May 2007
| < May 10 | May 12 > |
|---|
- Voluntary RfAs after resignation
- Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication
- Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers
- Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed?
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Támar
Probably not notable, partially unverifiable, not citing any sources, not NPOV. Tinctorius 12:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I would say even if most of the article's information is true it passes notability, but there are no references and certainly not NPOV. It's not an unsalvageable article, but if nobody does it then yes, it needs deleting. Mentality 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: passes notability? What notability criterium does she pass then? Is she the subject of multiple non-trivial published works? The article doesn't mention any chartered hits, gold certifications, major music awards or competitions, notable works (I guess) or international tours, she has published only one album (which appears to be canceled)(this part is very unclear to me)... in what respect is she actually notable? --Tinctorius 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? From the article lead section, "She sang the co-lead vocals on the Grammy-nominated song "Beautiful, Loved and Blessed" from Prince's 2006 album, 3121 and on backup vocals throughout the album." That sounds like a notable work to me. JulesH 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: passes notability? What notability criterium does she pass then? Is she the subject of multiple non-trivial published works? The article doesn't mention any chartered hits, gold certifications, major music awards or competitions, notable works (I guess) or international tours, she has published only one album (which appears to be canceled)(this part is very unclear to me)... in what respect is she actually notable? --Tinctorius 15:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep Minor celebtrity; might as well have an article on her, as long as somebody is willing to clean it up and ensure it is sourced to reliable sources (hint for the page's authors: the current source, being a forum, is not reliable, but does have links to some sources that are). JulesH 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak keep, barely passes WP:MUSIC. There seem to be some things written about her out there. The article needs those sources and other improvement. --Dhartung | Talk 08:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Clean Up I have sources!!!!. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nycboi1 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
- Comment: what sources? The only source that might pass WP:RS is the MTV bio site. --Tinctorius 21:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep, she just crosses into notability. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as notable. Article could still be expanded, and more sources added. CattleGirl 01:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep- passes WP:MUSIC Thunderwing 11:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep Jusssst notable --St.daniel 11:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Weak Keep some notability. Needs to add sources -Lemonflash/(c) 23:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Should be cleaned up to remove original research. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Rhinelandic
Contested speedy. Unreferenced article about some term, suspected of being original research. I suppose it should be deleted if no sources can be found. W.marsh 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete It should be deleted because the term Rhinelandic is not used in Germanic linguistics - there is simply no need for an article with this title. No one has been able to cite any published peer-reviewed work in which the term is used. Add to this the fact that the content itself is clueless nonsense. I originally questioned the value of this article 10 months ago. The fact that no one has attempted to answer the criticisms in all that time suggests that there is no need to delay deletion any further. --Pfold 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - there is a corresponding article in the German Misplaced Pages and the Germans live happily with it. They gave three (similar) meanings of "Rheinische Sprache" and our article is about the third one. (Both English and German articles seem to be of low quality, but it is possible to make them better.)--Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- And even if it's not the proper translation, it should be kept as a redirect to the more proper one. Dhaluza 01:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't read to much into the link - if you look through the history, it's apparent that the link to the German article is the work of the same user who wrote most of the nonsense on this page. In any case, the German page doesn't inspire confidence - it's just an unsourced listing of usages, with no implication that the term has any status in linguistics. --Pfold 10:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep we should be check to make sure that Rhinelandic is the appropriate and most widely used English translation of "Rheinische Sprache". If Rhinelandic is not used, its German counterpart seems to be used albeit infrequently by German writers, as Google Scholar brings up 1,880 hits for Rheinische + Sprache, the vast majority of the Rheinische's are not of the Sprache, but of the University or location of the research, which are not relevant however, Google Scholar also brings up a couple of hits for "Rheinische Mundart" but that gets us in to the eternal langauge (Sprache) vs. dialect (Mundart) debate. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WjBscribe 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe keep Googling suggests that the word is used to discuss dialects. Whether it is a colloquial or technical term is unclear, however. Mangoe 03:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; babble, badly translated. "The Benrather line both clearly divides the tonal area into two language areas and clearly fails to conceal they are yet very similar." The English is Benrath line, which divides Low from High German. Original reasearch; whether or not this is a genuinely useful concept, we would do better starting over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral, seems like OR, but, like Ioannes Pragensis said, there is an article on the German Wikpipedia, and a Google search turns up a few results. Tim.bounceback 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Note, however, that the German article is de:Rheinische Sprache, which would be "Rhenish language" or "dialect" in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; on the whole I agree with the concerns that have been expressed above. On the question of the translation of "Rheinische Sprache", I suspect that the word "Rhenish" would be the closest term in English. I don't know if this would be the same thing as the Rhenish dialect of German, on which subject Google Books finds over 600 separate works. -- ChrisO 00:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- That becomes 83 hits when one introduces quotation marks. Still significant, but since the German wikipedia treats the term as ambiguous (I read it as saying there is a High German accent, a Standard German dialect, and a bunch of Low German local variants) I am still concerned that the present article is OR. Rhinelandic gets 5, of which at least 4 have nothing to do with language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as stub. Clearly this is not completely made up, e.g. see sidebar in: . Dialects are a serious topic in German, probably more so than in English, so this may be a case of WP:BIAS. But the unreferenced content is a problem. Move most of it to the talk page pending reference inclusion, leaving a valid stub. P.S. I also tagged the German page for lack of references, in case that will bring any forward. Dhaluza 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.