Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 May 11: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:22, 10 May 2007 editWJBscribe (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users40,293 edits Relist 2 from May 3← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:32, 10 May 2007 edit undoWJBscribe (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users40,293 edits Relist 9 from May 5Next edit →
Line 13:		Line 13:
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Támar}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Támar}}
	{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rhinelandic}}		{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rhinelandic}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Voight Pipe}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Russel Walder}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Out Out}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Homecooked}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Tackett}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/George & Joe}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Oak Hill Country Club (Fitchburg , Massachusetts)}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gizmondo games}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Star_Wars_Technical_Commentaries}}

Revision as of 23:32, 10 May 2007

< May 10	May 12 >

Guide to deletion Centralized discussion

Village pumps: policy; tech; proposals; idea lab; WMF; misc

For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. - 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)

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 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 result was keep; article has been expanded. Krimpet (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Voight Pipe

It reads like nonsense - but I don't think it's speedyable Will 11:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak keep It's jargon-filled and technical, but I believe it's valid (I grew up around engineers who designed speakers, and this sounds a lot like their techno-babble). The article needs Wikification badly, though. --Dynaflow 11:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I have attempted to Wikify it. This is my first post. Help would be appreciated. Thanks--JacquesPHI 12:19, 5 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 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keep I don't know where the nominator got the idea that this "reads like nonsense." Google either "Voight Pipe" or "Voigt Pipe" and you get plenty of examples. I'd suggest that the article either be expanded or redirected to Loudspeaker enclosure, which already has descriptions of TQWPs, also termed Voigt Pipe in that section of the article. But the nom doesn't make deletion for me. 74.134.59.45 03:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep - good work JacquesPHI; to the above editor - the reason was that it was just repaired. --Haemo 03:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy keep - Googling lists dozens of links that make clear this is a real thing. Mangoe 04:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Keep per consensus. Pea ceNT 04:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Russel Walder

WP:RS:No sources listed appear to be reliable. Sources appear to be a google dump, & many of the sources listed are simply other wikipedia pages.
WP:ATT/WP:N: Claims of grandeur without attribution. No reliable sources to verify claimed notability.
WP:NPOV/WP:COI: Possible COI, definitely not written from a neutral point of view ("redefining the possibilities of the oboe", etc.) /Blaxthos 13:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. /Blaxthos 13:18, 5 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 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Note Blaxthos AFD does not work through voting (unless policy changed I havn't been here for awhile).--M8v2 02:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as vanity self-promotion--created by a single-purpose oboe-POV-pushing vanity account--the first of its kind I've ever seen. Qworty 02:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean up. The article is something of a mess, but that's cause for clean up, not deletion. The subject seems to have some legitimate degree of notability as a jazz oboist: , , Mwelch 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and clean up as per Mwelch. Walder released three well-regarded albums with Ira Stein in the 1980's. Horologium 06:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Sure, this article is a mess but if cleaned up and wikifyed, it could be suitable.The Sunshine Man 11:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep, the subject is notable enough that this can and should be salvaged. RFerreira 04:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was Deleted, copyvio --Steve _(Stephen) 02:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Out Out

Fails WP:BAND. Cool Blue 13:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as nominator. Cool Blue 14:47, 5 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 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

keep - According to the article, this band had a few releases with Metropolis, maybe the largest goth-electronic label in the USA, and that alone establishes their notability under WP:MUSIC. ~~However, the article is so POV and so WP:SOAP and so desperately in need of cleanup that it'd be no great loss if you did get rid of it.~~ AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
oh, no wonder - this article was AfDed 3 minutes after creation. It could have been tagged instead with the notability tag, the cleanup tag, or the other tag to beg for sources to be added. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - But major, major work is needed on the article, as its current form is atrocious. I remember spinning these guys when I was an electro DJ and they were fairly notable in the scene in the late 90's. Would be willing to work on the article and bring it up to standards if kept. Tarc 15:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 16:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us your reasoning? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as copyvio without prejudice against re-creation.--FreeKresge 01:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Celebrity Homecooked

This seems to be a fairly recent book largely of interest to watchers of Australian celebrities. Given its recent publication date and the fact that it doesn't seem likely to be terribly influential or unique, I figure it's probably a prime candidate for AfD. Have at it, then. Haikupoet 16:57, 5 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 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. This article is merely about a cookbook - and notability is hardly established throughout. It's a short article providing little context and no sources. --Ali 16:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think the notability of its participants can be extended to the book. It is also orphaned. -- lucasbfr 10:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus. Sr 13 07:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Tim Tackett

More self-serving and promotional than notoriety Shoessss 17:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Most notable claim is to have been the student of the student of Bruce Lee. No sources of notability.--Work permit 03:10, 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 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Blatant advertising (CSD G12) and NN subject. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. The only way this martial arts hobbyist could become notable would be if he beat up someone famous. Qworty 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - definitely nothing more than an ad. A martial arts instructor in Redlands? Maybe he's notable for being the only martial artist in Redlands... BlackberryLaw 08:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete No assertion of notability, no references.The Sunshine Man 11:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable and well-respected martial artist; please note the six books listed. The Hsing-i kung-fu books are rare and valuable English-language works on the subject. This is a notable martial artist and not a hobbyist. He has intentionally kept a low profile over the years. (I am in no way affiliated with him or his group.) The Wed, night club is also well-known. JJL 17:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Notable, well-respected, and well known martial artist in the Jeet-Kune-Do world and in martial arts in general. He is is one of the top instructors world-wide. I'll try to find some sources to assert notability. --Kimon 22:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
keep please the person is very notable in martial artist world yuckfoo 00:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. --Kinu /_c 03:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

George & Joe

No hits at all on this show from Google or Yahoo. Likely a hoax. Blueboy 96 17:47, 5 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 23:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I reckon that it's probably a local program on public access. Not notable. --Haemo 00:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Per Haemo. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete as vanity. The article was created by someone named George. I guess Joe will be dropping by soon. Qworty 02:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete. Without a description of the show itself, this article seems to be completely made up. KJS 77 02:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was delete. Veinor 17:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oak Hill Country Club (Fitchburg , Massachusetts)

I removed an A7 speedy since holes designed by a notable designer is an assertion of notability. However, it is unsourced and lacks the necessary secondary sources to establish notability so I am bringing it here so that editors can take a view on its notability. This is a procedural AfD on which I abstain. TerriersFan 20:03, 5 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 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's just a country club, apparently just like any other. Mangoe 04:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep and add sources. Fg2 02:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment - unfortunately unless reliable sources attesting to its notability, independent of the Club, are added before the AfD is closed my view is that the article cannot be kept, on policy grounds, since it would fail WP:V. TerriersFan 03:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete I don't think the holes are notable enough. I would have said to move the information to the designer's article, but I can't find his complete name. -- lucasbfr 10:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with Fg2, keep and add sources. Recently created article, will be expanded. Smee 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Delete WP:N, WP:CORP. A quick Google search reveals mostly directory listings. The only non-trivial coverage I could find was this article, which says the course will be the site of two minor tournaments. Don't see how this country club is any more special than thousand others like it. Ytny (talk) 15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Delete as per Ytny above. ~~The best coverage I could find is this article which basically says the course is the backup location for the Senior PGA Championship if "something cataclysmic" were to happen.~~ --Kralizec! (talk) 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that article refers to Oak Hill Country Club, an actually notable golf course. --Ytny (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooops. In that case, I will say delete as per WP:NOTE. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Slavlin 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was keep. Merging is an editorial decision that anyone can make if they feel like it. - Bobet 00:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Gizmondo games

Johnny Whatever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Momma Can I Mow The Lawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Milo and the Rainbow Nasties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angel Fish (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(View AfD)

Articles about apparently cancelled Gizmondo games, created by Nextreme (talk · contribs); originally nominated for speedy deletion. Little to no references (just an outdated link to screenshots at Games Asylum, another broken one to Warthog Texas , with a Youtube demo video in one of the articles). I am nominating the articles for deletion due to notability and verifiability concerns, but making no vote myself; consider it a procedural nomination. - Mike Rosoft 20:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete all - independent sources are needed to establish notability, for instance reviews in significant magazines saying these are good or innovative etc games. Bridgeplayer 21:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep Johnny Whatever The game created far more buzz than any other Gizmondo game, released or otherwise, as it was set to come out on the home consoles and the demo/preview featured a number of notable artists (i.e. The White Stripes). See, for example, the coverage done by IGN () and GameSpot (), the latter of which did previews of both the console and handheld versions. -- Kicking222 21:16, 7 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 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep Johnny Whatever: This one had the most (and most relevant) hits on this google search. ~ Magnus animum ∵ ∫ φ γ 01:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep all When it comes to conole games, being unreleased is not necessarily grounds for deletion. All of these got some attention in mainstream gaming publications, and I recall seeing screenshots for at least some of them. Needs cleanup and expansion, not deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge all into List of Gizmondo games, as it is unlikely these articles will ever be de-stubbed unless another company purchases them. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Merge I am with Kralizec!. Merge it into the List of Gizmondo games Slavlin 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The result was no consensus to delete, no consensus to merge, and no consensus to move. Either of the latter two can be purused editorially to try and develop a consensus; however, there wasn't one as a result of this discussion. Cheers, Daniel 08:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Star_Wars_Technical_Commentaries

Not a notable website. See Misplaced Pages:Notability for criteria for notability. Also see Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction) for reasons why this website is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. New guy 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete New guy 02:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep, or maybe merge into TheForce.Net. The specific guidelines for assessing the notability of web content are at WP:WEB. I should think that such a comprehensive and supposedly contentious set of webpages must be central to much discussion about Star Wars, though I can't actually find much supporting secondary evidence on the internet. However the fact that it is also the source of two notable books is in its favour. Smalljim 16:21, 9 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 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal - since Saxton is a published author with verifiable links about him and Lucasfilm not particularly getting along, perhaps we should move the article to Chris Saxton, and add further information on his writings? I won't vote because I have been a reader and fan of this website for ages and ages (He has a "what's updated" feature that he added after I suggested it to him sometime back in the mid 90s), so I'm biased. --Golbez 00:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean to call it Curtis John Saxton or Curtis Saxton (that's what he uses on his web site), and I think its a good idea. But I note that he is still a postdoc, with 9 published papers and may not yet be notable purely as a scientist. DGG 21:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, yeah, whatever his name is. :) I'm not saying he's notable as a postdoc or scientist, though he may be; but he DOES seem notable as an author. --Golbez 06:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete Article has existed for a long, long time, with no reputable citations added. Smee 09:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Move as per Golbez above; Curtis John Saxton appears to be one of the authors of the Star Wars Incredible Cross Sections series, and Amazon.com shows him as the co-author for two other SW books. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
move per consencus — Preceding unsigned comment added by I Lv Timothy (talk • contribs)