Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:35, 14 August 2008

< August 13	August 15 >

Guide to deletion

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 Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Roth

No assertion of real notability; contested PROD with no rationale given Dethme0w (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is listed as the second attempt for nomination for deletion because the article was inadvertantly doubly nominated and the other nomination was closed and this one was allowed to remain. The multiplicity of nominations should therefor not affect the decision of editors in relation to their votes.

Observation creator has removed the AfD tag and claimed in the edit summary to have addressed the central issue, but has not done anything but remove the tag. Twice now - apparently the creator is above policy. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other wikipedia articles and blogs generally are not acceptable as sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question- I notice there's a review from the Kansas City Star linked as a reference. I can't verify from this computer, but could this be enough for notability? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: It's sort of gray -- I say that because, while he did make the paper, so did some guy who was shot by police yesterday in the Bronx for fleeing an arrest, and he doesn't get a Wikipedia article. Legitimate news stories definitely add (if not establish) someone's notability, but one source in one paper on one day is really just the beginning of the journey towards notability, rather than the destination. I added it because I found it, in hopes of perhaps finding more, or instilling in others the notion that sources like this should be sought, rather than blogs and -- haha -- other wikipedia articles. It's when people resort to that type of sourcing that red flags are raised and legitimate entites whose articles may be redrafted are deleted because a mockery had been made of the process. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is described in several reliable third-party sources including the Houston Chronicle and the Kansas City Star. Article could use improvement and better sourcing but those are issues for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not my field, but the quote given seems to imply that he might become notable in the future, which is not usually considered quite enough. DGG (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily closed. Two created at the same time by the same person, likely Wiki bug. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Roth (2nd nomination) TravellingCari 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Roth

Does not assert real notability; contested prod. Dethme0w (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close as this is a duplicate AFD to the one directly above. 23skidoo (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World War III (card game)

This article is original research on a non-notable variation of the card game War co-created by the article's author. In summary, it is OR, NN, and a potential COI, and should be deleted. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 03:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons listed above Annette46 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I agree, this is the garbage that makes me rage --98.15.155.163 (talk) 04:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All in favour of a new speedy-delete criterion for "this garbage makes me rage"? :D ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I could go for that. :D Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 15:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as methinks the article falls foul of WP:MADEUP. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be original research if nothing else, and the apparent COI of the creator just confirms that this article probably is not sourceable. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability or verification. Appears to be WP:MADEUP Artene50 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete It's an amazing game! Nobody has the right to delete this unless they have played it. Markmustard 19:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in email contact with this user about this article. Further advice, here, from other editors would be nice, too. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 03:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy/snow keep. Nom effectively withdrawn This is an obvious KEEP now. I would withdraw the nom, but since it's already started, might as well let it finish and strengthen the article wih an AfD KEEP under its belt, yes? and there is consensus that as Secretary of State, he is notable. TravellingCari 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobías Zúñiga Castro

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "is every politician notable for being a politician? CSD for no assertion of notability and no context or content. Nothing links here (but Tobias, which I linked) ... qualifies for CSD A1, A2, A3, and A7." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Keep Oh for goodness sake. He has an article on the Spanish wikipedia that we should look at too, but there is a (poor) source that says he was Costa Rican Secretary of State. That makes him notable. If need be, I can forget about going to bed a bring content over from the Spanish Wikipedia. He was born in February of 1854. That means it's going to be impossible to quickly find English sources on the internet better than the one I added. The Spanish article says he was Secreatary of State, among other things. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a poor translation of the Spanish Wikipedia article. Dloh cierekim 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the nominator has erred in his interpretation of Speedy deletion criteria. None of those cited apply-- plenty of context, content and assertion of notability. A2 applies to foreign language versions of articles on English Wikipedia that also exist on that language Wikipedia. In this instance, what we had was a bare-bones stub. What we have now is a poor translation of that article, plus information from a poor source. Some leeway must be taken in sourcing trans cultural articles and articles about subjects from before the computer age. It will take a search of Spanish documents to source this, followed by translation. Hopefully, the creator, User:Blofeld of SPECTRE is up to the challenge. I am not. Cheers, and happy editing. Dloh cierekim 04:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vengeance has boldly removed my admittedly poor reference twice. So now I'm scrambling for sources in a language I don't know. Gets better than 20 Google books hits. That's pretty good for a man dead for ninety years. Has significant coverage in secondary sources. Anyone read Spanish? Dloh cierekim 04:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sometimes. (Actually, I thought one "add back" was accidental via edit conflicts or something.)

Ordinarily, I don't go commenting after the nom, instead letting the chips fall where they may. BUT:

Big-D has done great work on this and I'm perfectly satisfied with it now. Did I misread the CSD? Yeah, probably. Someone mentioned in an unrelated page that I'm still battling the learning curve. Maybe.

This is an obvious KEEP now. I would withdraw the nom, but since it's already started, might as well let it finish and strengthen the article wih an AfD KEEP under its belt, yes?

Open for advice on the best course of action. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{11:50, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Well, when I mistakenly propose an article for deletion, and it becomes evident that I was mistaken, I withdraw the nomination so the AFD can be speedily kept. An AFD discussion does not strengthen an article. It merely diverts time and energy that would be better spent article writing. Not withdrawing the thing merely continues to waste time and energy better spent elsewhere. I spent time I could have spent sleeping to develop and support a "keep" argument I need not have made. I knew that Blofield would be back at leisure to to do the work I was doing in a sleep deprived state. But once under scrutiny at AFD, the effort had to be made. My suggestion to the nominator would be that they do a little research with the idea of sourcing and strengthening articles where the speedy deletion declined or the PROD removed. Dloh cierekim 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Someone who would have won the Costa Rican Presidency but for the suspension of civil liberties would seem to be a pretty specific claim of notability, and is supported by appropriate sources. Alansohn (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All it took was a little research < BIG ole ear to ear grin >. Dloh cierekim 05:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had found some of the same sources in the New York Times, which does mention him by name in a list of ministerial changes. I'd love to see expansion, but I do see notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a New York Times stub saying he was appointed Minister of War in 1902.John Z (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently his son, Tobías Zúñiga Montúfar was a prominent politician too. So considering how spanish surnames work, this with 142 hits, 19 with limited or full view, gets more.John Z (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this nomination a Secetary of State and presidential candidate of a nation clearly meets notbaility criteria. ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦ ^"Talk"? 11:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Eng

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Non-notable vanity page. NO EDITORS but for creator (redlink) and robot or copyedit (like me). No claim of notability. CSD A1, A3, & A7." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability separate from the band Violent Work of Art, as required by WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Eng

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Non-notable vanity page. NO EDITORS but for creator (redlink) and robot or copyedit (like me). No claim of notability. CSD A1, A3, & A7." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Delete, not notable per WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability separate from the band Violent Work of Art, as required by WP:MUSIC. Nsk92 (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Record Bar

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Non-notable list." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:00, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Keep Gone but not forgotten. Still has news archive hits. Still gets Google Book hits. Almost forgot. This is not a list. It is an article about a now defunct music store chain with 150 stores. The links will support this. Yes, it's badly formatted-- someone tried to do a year by year historical. But that merits clean-up, not deletion. If one takes the trouble to go through the google hits, they come away seeing that this was a company that met WP:CORP Dloh cierekim 06:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still gets 16 hits on Galenet's Business and Company Resource Center. (You will need to log in through your library patron access, assuming your library is a subscriber.] Dloh cierekim 19:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination gives no good reason to delete (it's clearly not a list although possibly formatted like one) and it appears to me that it could be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 12:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article needs cleanup, not deletion, and notability is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaker (band)

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "non-notable. Only links are to MySpace profiles. Google search of song DOES give lyrics, though. More than a year without any references." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:01, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have to ask did the nominator even do a search before they put this up for AfD, like you're meant to I might add. The second sentence mentions a charting song, and a 10 second search at billboard.com confirms it [1]. Meets WP:MUSIC#C2. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep now why would anyone decline a speedy when the article says, "charted in the top forty?" Allmusic indicates adequate charting for notability. If an article lacks references, my suggestion would be to find/add them rather than bringing it here. There are other venues for article improvement. one could use maybe one of these books listed on Google Books. Significant coverage by third party writers about music. Dloh cierekim 05:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC#C2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 12:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC. My copy of Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn confirms the song's Top 40 placement (and as does allmusic). I agree some work should be done to add some sources, but Afd is not cleanup. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:Music. Tezkag72 (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Goodman

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Notability? History shows only contributing editor (all others are categorizing, etc.) and no references." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:01, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Keep Singing the Dogstar Blues has won an Aurealis Award, according to this little anthology profile. Goodman is also listed in Gale's Contemporary Authors. Zagalejo^^^ 03:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, award, CA. There are 10 copies of Dogstar within driving distance of me here in sleepy, li'l old Largo-- wait she's from Australia. Her book appears in over 1000 libraries around the world. She must have something on the ball. (Awards listed on CA added to artcle). (Really, if you can't get to Gale via your library, have a good talk with your Library Director. Tell 'em a former library board member said it's essential.) Meets Wikipedia:Bio#Creative_professionals Dloh cierekim 05:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article explains that Alison has written a book, and won a couple of awards, but it fails to demonstrate notability in accordance with the criterion at WP:BIO. On the matter of having written a book, at Notability criteria it says:

(3) The person has published a significant and well-known academic work. An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature.

I know Alison's book is not an academic work, but this is the best advice we have from WP. I see nothing to suggest Alison's book is significant or well-known, or that it is the subject of multiple independent works, or is widely cited by other authors. It would be nice if every person who ever wrote a book and had it published could have his or her own article in Wikipedia, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia has articles about truly notable people. Dolphin51 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other than meeting the guideline by being included in over 1,000 libraries around the world? Dloh cierekim 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done the creator, User:Metamagician3000, the courtesy of notifying of this discussion. Dloh cierekim 13:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to WP:CREATIVE, notability is established if the person's work ... has won significant critical attention. I note that her awards include the Aurealis Award for Best Young Adult Novel and Book of the Year. Surely this meets notability requirements. WWGB (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another award has been added to the list. Dloh cierekim 23:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be sufficient awards to indicate notability. I've found a couple of sources, one from the courier mail [2], another a short book review at the Winconsin State Journal [3]. I suspect other sources exist. I've added a source for one of the awards (the fellowship), which mentions some of the other awards in the list, as well as another award from the American Library Association. I'm not sure what the name for that one should be. Also, the article in the courier mail mentions translation rights for France and Germany (for her new book) in six figures, which seems to be another point in her favour. Silverfish (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on the above, would appear to meet the WP:CREATIVE notability guideline, due to winning lots of awards, as well as WP:N for generally for having secondary coverage in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was closed with no prejudice (nomination by banned user). Sandstein 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roar Uthaug

Declined Speedy (or Contested Prod) — "Non-notable. Look at edit history not comforting either. No real claim to notability in article. IMDB even has little on him, nothing since 2006." Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{03:01, 14 Aug 2008 (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 Keep. Someone might like to add some refs to the article. The song articles aren't part of this AfD and any merging/redirecting of such can be done in the usual manner. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Superstar

Despite the deceiving list of credits, I do not feel this person meets WP:MUSIC due to the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable and independent third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you. Lady Galaxy 02:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (withholding judgement) — I don't disagree, but what becomes of these pages of her songs?

1999 Come Up to My Room/Love-Hate to Be a Player
1999 I Hope I Sell a Lot of Records at Christmastime
2001 Wet!Wet!Wet!/Keith N' Me
2002 Bad Babysitter (chart position #11 in the UK)
2002 Keith N' Me (feat. Kool Keith)
2003 Do It like a Robot
2003 Jam For The Ladies (Moby vs. Princess Superstar, original version on the Moby album 18)
2004 Memphis Bells (The Prodigy featuring Princess Superstar)
2005 Coochie Coo (EP)
2005 Perfect (EP)
2005 My Machine
2006 Perfect (Exceeder) (vs. Mason) (#3 UK, #1 UK Dance Chart, #17 NL)
TBA Lollipop (confirmed on her official website

It seems to me that it would be more logical to delete/redirect all those pages to her profile page rather than delete her profile page and leave all the single song pages. Does that make sense? (Perhaps better said: If these songs are notable, and there's that many, wouldn't the singer be notable?) Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{02:47, 14 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

Week Keep does seem to have independent coverage like [4] - any albums or songs that don't meet WP:MUSIC should be redirected to singer's article though - and I wish I could say delete for apparently also having albums titled Now is the Winter of Our Discotheque -Hunting dog (talk) 10:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and hold on at least long enough for me to get home and try to find references! Princess Superstar is reasonably notable; certainly not in the same league as many of the WP:MUSIC-failing individuals who've been listed here today. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK: Sources - Metro interview; Top 10 listing for Perfect (Exceeder) collaboration with Mason (WP:MUSIC criterion 2). AlexTiefling (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, shouldn't the song articles be merged into the article about the artist? Individually they may not be enough to justify separate articles, but they constitute a notable body of work. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep she would appear to meet the notability criteria (although I'm not sure the same can be said for all her songs/albums and they therefore should be merges or redirects per the relevant policies/guidelines. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep. A quick glance shows songs hitting #3 and #11 in the UK Singles Chart, certainly enough to meet WP:MUSIC. Personally I remember Bad Babysitter being in annoyingly heavy rotation on music video channels. Some of the song articles could well be merged though. the wub "?!" 11:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NLP_Modeling. Nandesuka (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy (NLP)

This appears to be an in-universe description of how neuro-linguistic programming uses one word, with no actual support for the term as a separate concept outside of the NLP walled garden. Many people seem to believe that NLP is a pseudoscience, and I believe that by giving credence to the idea that NLP has some special insight into the concept of "strategy" which is distinct from that described at strategy we are giving undue weight to a fringe view, in contravention of policy. Notability is also a key factor here, as the topic itself at a glance doesn't appear notable, and there is no reliable independent sourcing present, so verifiability is also a concern here. rootology (T) 02:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we have break-out articles on a topic, all it says is that there's too much stuff to keep it in one article. Lots of fields have specialized terminology that differs from the common usage of a term. I'm also not sure this is a very valid deletion reason. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and it could well be kept if consensus supports that... Independent notability, verifiability, and reliable sourcing are also always an overriding concern as well, and it appears (from some looking) to be a concern here. There is none of any of it in the article--no sources at all, in fact.. I left that off the original nomination by mistake and update it. Guy's nomination of the Rapport (NLP) article from the NLP section is so far also being considered under similar reasoning, as well. rootology (T) 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict) On this one, unlike the rapport one, I think there's probably a valid basis for keeping. "In universe" isn't by itself, necessarily a problem ("factor" is completely in-universe for math and "convention (bridge)" for bridge), the important thing to check is whether it's solely in-universe, and whether it's a topic that's been taken note of, beyond a narrow niche. I'd want to check sources and see what coverage it has. The other grounds for deletion seem to be a bit weak ("many people seem to believe..." and "beliefs about the topic validity" taken as an inclusion criterion). What needs checking is whether it meets notability/verifiability criteria and the like, much more to the point, and whether sufficient authoritative sources exist to write a good quality description covering all significant views, if so. As per Morven's point, this article probably stands or falls based upon sources or their lack. It is indeed completely unsourced, and AFD is being correctly used to see if that's a fatal flaw or fixable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can add some independent sources to show the notability, let me know--if you can track down several independent ones also drop me a note on my talk here or Commons (I look at that one more day to day, plus it dings me with email) in case I miss this AFD changing on my watchlist. rootology (T) 06:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you translate the first sentence into standard English please, FT2. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 05:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On 'many people believe', let's say NLP fits all the classic definitions of pseudoscience. Personalisation, degenerating research program, 'cuckoo' appropriation of other perfectly valid scientific, psychological or philosophical concepts (e.g. the 'as if' notion), lack of testable or falsifiable hypotheses. On the latter, see the unintelligible Principles of NLP. Peter Damian (talk) 05:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While we are at it, why isn't Principles of NLP up for deletion. This contains far more bollox than anything else we have considered so far. It is rambling and incoherent and even contains the sentence 'there are no principles of NLP'. Peter Damian (talk) 05:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was mainly an essay, barely edited since its creation in 2006, duplicating the main article. Now merged back in. Sticky Parkin 14:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Can't make much sense of what is is supposed to be about. It opens with the unintelligible sentence 'In Neuro-linguistic programming, a strategy is a mental sequence used to achieve a goal.'. The rest of the article is a banal description of the mental processes involved in, saying, admiring a dress. Peter Damian (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Fringe theory, unreferenced article that is virtually unreadable on a fringe theory. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The questionable claims in the article are totally unsupported by reputable sources. Poltair (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not that I'm against having an article on NLP... it's that there are so many. The depth of coverage is taking an article and turning it into a how-to. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I know a bit about NLP but this is an attempt to make a normal word mean other than it normally means, and legitimize another meaning, plus it's not often noted. If we want to discuss NLP-ers use of the word 'strategy', we can do so in the NLP article in about a sentence. Sticky Parkin 13:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I find the delete arguments compelling. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's interesting: within the article lead you could replace the phrase "Neuro-linguistic programming" with "Role-playing games"... Hiding T 16:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sufficient sources are added to verify the accuracy of the basic info given in the article and to demonstrate notability of the topic. At the moment it is very difficult to understand what the article is about and, although the article is 2 years old, there are still no sources cited in it. For now what is written in the article essentially qualifies as WP:OR. The topic is sufficiently technical and specialized that some amount of specific knowledge of the subject matter is necessary to fill in the gaps here and add some sources; this is not a case where a random editor unfamiliar with the subject can just do a google search, find a few relevant references and add them. After reading the text a couple of times I still could not make heads or tails out of it. I should say, however, that I am not persuaded by the "undue weight" arguments of the nominator. Yes, this seems to be an article about some sort of a fringe theory but the undue weight issue would only come in if the article was about a larger topic. In articles about fringe theories/movements themselves the udue weight argument does not really play. The key question is if the topic if notable. I suspect that it might be (certainly there is plenty of coverage of NLP, whatever that is, by reliable sources, as a basic GoogleScholar search shows[5]) but given the technical nature of the subject, it is up to the article creator and the keep proponents to provide verifiable evidence of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google sadly does not indicate reliable sources at all. The first hit is 'Frogs into Princes' which is the classic NLP self-improvement book (clue: the title itself). The rest are manuals written by NLP promoters. Do be careful of using Google scholar for this kind of thing. The mere fact a book appears there, does not imply it was written by 'a scholar'. Best Peter Damian (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I agree with your point but the mere fact that a book/article is written by a promoter of a particular theory does not yet make it fail as a WP:RS. I would look at where the thing is published. If it is a reputable scholarly journal, I would still count this as a reliable source. In some cases I would also count a book published by a highly regarded academic publisher as a reliable source (at least for verifiability purposes) even if the author advocates a fringe or a minority view. In the case of the googlesearch in question I see a few articles in scholarly journals and some law-enforcement sources (e.g. FBI[6]) that appear legit, e.g.[7][8][9][10][11][12] (not all mention NLP in the abstracts but GoogleScholar gives them as hits with partial quotes). So I am fairly sure that NLP itself as a topic is notable. The business with "strategies" is another matter and there I would would to see more direct evidence both in terms of satisfying WP:V and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Most of the content in Strategy (NLP) has already been merged with Representational systems. Strategy (NLP) could be deleted or redirected there. ----Action potential ^{t c} 21:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Un-sourced stub about a non-notable sub-topic that can easily be included in one of the various larger pages within the NLP-realm of articles. The concept may be worth an explanation within those other pages, but it does not meet the requirements for a separate page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 12:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Slim Shady Show

This cartoon series lacks of notability and should be deleted per WP:Notability, which states that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The fact that Eminem plays a major role in this cartoon doesn't make it notable, as notability is not inherited. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its an alternate media offering with sufficient notability at rotten tomatoes, and numerous google hits Annette46 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable web production, widely released to DVD, and directly involving a notable singer. I'm not sure about listing Fox as a network on the infobox as this was produced for the web, but that's a content issue. Needs quite a bit of clean-up. 23skidoo (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep actually, Eminem starring in his own show makes it a prima facie official release, and should be looked upon like a live DVD or an album Sceptre ^(talk) 23:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: More than a few things in news results that indicate notability, contrary to the statements otherwise by the nominator. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. -- Longhair\^talk 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intrepid Travel

Non notable travel agent Dontdoit (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was a tricky one, because I Googled it and I saw that the article has references. But I still don't think it has enough to meet notability, either. Lady Galaxy 02:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not entirely happy with the way this has been written, but the two long-ish articles in The Age are a good indicator of notability. Also added an Arthur Frommer column on the company from the San Francisco Chronicle, and there are further articles from reliable sources (~~i.e.~~ e.g. this Observer story). Gr1st (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 10:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is a joke. The company has an annual turnover of $130 million, operates in 96 countries, and has won seven national or international tourism awards. Oh, but it's not notable. Right ... WWGB (talk) 11:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known, sufficient secondary sources exist, clearly notable in my view. Murtoa (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only is the article referenced somewhat but there are quite an array of news articles about the company. Fails to be non-notable by a long shot - Peripitus (Talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article sufficiently demonstrates notability. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not a quasi-advertisement for just-one-more small business. Intrepid Travel is outside the mainstream, and therefore potentially notable. Some parts of the article look like an extract from a Prospectus, or the Annual Report to shareholders, but these can be cleaned up. The article is capable of being made scrupulously objective while still highlighting the genuine notability of the company as specified at WP:COMPANY Dolphin51 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs cleanup, but as shown above, it clearly meets WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linthicum family in Maryland

PROD has been bypassed due to the potential for this nomination to be controversial. This article is a piece of genealogical research; however much I am supportive of genealogy, I would class this as original research on the part of someone not necessarily the editor who created the page. I will note that some of the content exists at Crofton, Maryland#Existing landmarks. One way to treat this article is as an instance of WP:BLP1E, which would cover Thomas Linthicum, but not the family as a whole; because BLP1E does not properly apply (as it might for "Dupont family in Delaware" or "Kennedy family in politics" to draw two from a hat), I argue for deletion of the article. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Huh.. if kept, it needs serious cleanup. So far it's unreferenced and doesn't meet notability. Lady Galaxy 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and not notabaleAnnette46 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ali

Web cartoonist with a single weekly strip. Fails the notability criteria for biographies in general and for creative professionals in particular. Not the subject of published secondary source material, no major awards, no evidence to date of a unique or enduring contribution to his field, not widely cited by peers or the developer of a body of work with substantial industry or community recogntiion. Euryalus (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable enough for encyclopediaAnnette46 (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:Bio. Wikieditor06 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.. Sandstein 16:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Harry Potter stories

Delete - A timeline of the popular book series. Sources are only primary and from unreliable fan pages, breaking WP:V and WP:RS. Some of the content is unsourced or original research (WP:OR) This belongs on a fan site, not Wikipedia (WP:NOTWEBHOST). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter (second nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dates in Harry Potter. Dalejenkins | 12:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article passed its previous AFD following a WP:DRV decision in favor of reversing the previous deletion (when it was called Dates in Harry Potter. I don't see anything that has changed to warrant a change. As the closing admin stated, sourceability is the key, and if there aren't already there will be additional sources created on this topic. I agree that WP:NOR needs to be maintained, but I do not agree that using primary sources suddenly equals OR, otherwise we may as well delete 99.99% of all film, TV and book articles on Wikipedia. 23skidoo (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that original sources equals OR. And new sources are unlikely to be written on the Potter timeline as the book series is over and the film series is set in the 2000s, whereas the book series was in the 1990s. Dalejenkins | 12:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as the book vs film timeframe, perhaps a line can be added to specify this is for the books. As for "unlikely to be written" this is presumptive. Rowlings just did a high-profile lawsuit related to her plans to write just such a work, there are numerous third-party studies of Potter in publication, and this is one of the biggest selling series of books in the history of literature. People are still writing chronologies related to Tolkien's works, so there is nothing to say additional sources related to Potter won't also be written. Indeed there is nothing to say that Rowlings will never write another Potter book; indeed she is about to publish a spin-off work (Beedle the Bard) and has stated that she has not ruled out an 8th book down the line. But that's beside the point: the point is there are plenty of sources listed, and there are sources that may be yet to come. The article needs to be clear that it's related to the book, not film chronology (and films don't state they take place in the 2000s or the 1990s anyway), but that's a content issue. 23skidoo (talk) 12:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is full of holes. The references there are mostly primary, and those that aren't are from fan sites. This sort of article belongs on a fan page. This is pure WP:CRUFT. And "sources that may be yet to come" violates WP:CRYSTAL. Also, a 2005 track by The Ordinary Boys is used in the Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix film, hence set in the 2000s. Dalejenkins | 13:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Well put-together, but pure fancruft. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I also favor deletion on this article, fancruft is not a valid deletion reason. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while Harry Potter is notable, the Timeline/ Chronology of Harry Potter is not notable. Furthermore the article lacks independent sources and is mostly WP:OR --T-rex 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced article which is necessary for a full understanding of the events of the text (from an outsider-study point of view)

The article is meticulously sourced, and all dates given can be verified from the original text (e.g. the statement in HPCS about 1492 being 500 years ago, the statement in HPPS about the day on which July 31st fell) or the author's public statements (in interviews and the like). I fail to see how giving a date of the event in a fictional universe, and citing the original text or interviews given by the author of that text, is any different from using the date of an event in history (say the Battle of Hastings) and citing a non-fiction work as the source.

Primary sources are considered reliable (and therefore sufficient for reference requirements) to uncontroversial facts about themselves. For example a university's website is a reliable source for the statement that the university 'has X thousand students'. Surely, for the assertion that a particular event in the Harry Potter fictional universe is set in a particular year, the actual text itself or the word of its author is sufficient? How could any third-party source provide more concrete evidence of this than the text and the author do?

Plenty of other articles (e.g. Lord of the Rings) discuss the in-universe times at which important events in the book take place - an understanding of chronology is essential for studying any book of this nature in which events occur over an extended period of time (including significant 'backstory' which is necessary to fully understand the text - as with LoTR in fact). The only difference I can see in this article is that the books are set (albeit vaguely) in real years (1991 - 1997) rather than fictional ones. Cynical (talk) 16:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this and the LOTR articles is that there isn't a large body of scholarship studying the Harry Potter series' setting in detail, nor was the series conceived as a fictional history, with great emphasis on continuity of setting and detail. Instead, where continuity exists it is continuity of motivation and events, not continuity of setting and timeline. Even the basic years aren't based on any source, but instead on adding and subtracting years based on known events (two years before three years after ten years before adds up to...) when the author herself says she got the math wrong several times.
This article makes original claims, based on intepretation of a work of fiction instead of any reliable sources. Conflating "notable" with "important" doesn't solve the core problem that there are no sources for the conclusions, making this one big ol' original research POV-push that this is the timeline that the series falls into and bugger the inconsistencies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per cynical.Nrswanson (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think I need to repeat the full discussion above. For notable fictions of an degree of complication, timeline articles are notable. The interweaving of past events in the various vols. of the series fully justify the virtues of an article like this. DGG (talk) 04:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole article is trying to argue when the events of the story took place, in violation of WP:SYNTH. The only factual real-world statement is "The dates are inconsistant, and JKR has admitted she's poor in math." You don't need an article for that. Leave this for a fan wikia. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fairly hard core original research, plus this is yet another redundant arrangement of plot summary arranged in an in-universe way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Primary sources are obviously the best in this case. Ad hominem arguments about fans are irrelevant and do not justify deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, independent third party sources are always best. If this article can not find any it should be deleted --T-rex 14:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with that statement. If you talk with wikiprojects related to the arts and literature they will tell you that primay sources are often essetial sources used within articles. Particularly on newer or more obscure works where there is limmited critical commentary and/or detailed information available about the work in other sources. I myself write articles on Baroque operas, many of which haven't been performed in 300 years, and use the scores to get invaluable information on things like the names of characters, etc. that might not be covered in an article discussing the opera's impact on musical history. Third party sources are essential for proving notability but I don't think they are essential for every detail on an article's page. If that were the case than many articles on the arts would remain stubs.Nrswanson (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is trying to say that primary sources are all-out BAD per-se, they're absolutely invaluable. However, you NEED secondary sources to back them up. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a plot summary of the Harry Potter books with some dates added on. 58K is far from a "concise" plot summary, and thus violates WP:NOT#PLOT. --Phirazo (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep. I'm not overenamoured of Harry Potter fandom, but, I can quite imagine this is the sort of information at least some people would come to Wikipedia to try and find... so I think this article is encyclopaedic.--S Marshall (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kelso21 (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why?--Phirazo (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's simply plot repetition from all the books. Looks like fancruft at best. It should be on a Harry Potter wiki, not here. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is merely a lengthy collection of fancrap plot summary rearranged into a timeline. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has little to no reliable sources, is an exceptionally long plot summary, and is mostly original research. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 23skidoo and DGG. It's an article based on the Harry Potter books so the books themselves are quite reliable and even those have been written about in other books also based on ...the original books. The only issue I see here is editors having to work through any disagreements and writing the entire article to avoid in universe concerns. Banjeboi 00:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and verifiability as well as the fiction policy extremely badly - even if the books themselves are notable, it doesn't mean this timeline is. It doesn't really matter if the article supports all its clear original research with a couple dozen cites of the books themselves and over thirty cites from just one of the many fansites used to source the article (that fansite, by the way, seems to be the basis for this article as it has a lot of content dedicated to hammering out a timeline like this one), because despite the considerable work obviously put into sourcing this article, the author was unable to find even a single relevant secondary source. It seems like a lot of people aren't well-versed on policy in this AfD, because you can source a series' content from itself all you want, but it's nothing more than fansite-level cruft until you can find secondary sources, otherwise you could put articles about anything fictional on Wikipedia without fear of it being deleted. Just because the books are notable and a few subjects from them are notable, by the way, doesn't mean a low-interest plot summary anyway. Also lacks significant real-world coverage, but at this point that's just another nail in the coffin. I suggest that people read WP:FICT as it covers pretty much all my arguements. Gelmax (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Wikipedia:Notability (books) covers this - "The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country". Banjeboi 23:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This article isn't about a book. WP:BK doesn't apply. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article does seem to be about the books - "the series of Harry Potter novels". Banjeboi 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - These are the articles about the books. This article is about a timeline of events in a fictional universe. The applicable notability subpage would be WP:FICT, as Gelmax notes in his !vote. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then Wikipedia:FICT#Creating_fictional_element_lists would seem to cover it. Banjeboi 03:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see how that clause applies. As it notes, it's generally used for groups of characters and episodes, subtopics which taken on a whole may be notable in the context of the larger work, but would be cumbersome to cram into the main article. It's not used to justify separate articles for topics that otherwise don't meet inclusion criteria. I'm still not seeing any reliable secondary sources which discuss contradictions in the Harry Potter timeline to a substantial degree. Further, this article is plot summary (simply rearranged) which is already covered elsewhere, and the Basis and Contradiction sections read like OR synthesis. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I see this as something that would fit in the main article were it not for size concerns. Banjeboi 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The plot of the series is already covered in the book and movie articles in a format both more faithful to the original works and more consistent with WP:PLOT. The concept of this article still shows no notability and is largely OR. There is very little, if any, encyclopedic content in the article that is worthy of inclusion on any page. I do not think your statement is compatible with the policies of Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We'll have to agree to disagree then. Banjeboi 21:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RMHED (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete purely original research. This is an compilation of facts and original analysis regarding books and movies. An article like this should really only exist if there have been published timelines from reliable sources. --Leivick (talk) 00:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I supposed you could call it "cruft" but it's well-written and extremely notable cruft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs)

Sorry, real-world notability is not inherited and it is not established by your just saying it is so. The non-third-party, non-truly secondary sources currently in the article (and as far as I can see, those are the best available) are insufficient to support that statement either. user:Everyme 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable and well-sourced. You might not like it, but Wikipedia does Fandom. Sourcing in-universe dates from the canon os just as good sourcing as taking baseball scores from the relevant league's yearbooks. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing in-universe dates by drawing debatable conclusions based on personal analysis of the fictional works is not good sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The timeline of a book/film series as popular and well-known as the Harry Potter series is almost always going to be notable. This is no exception. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different from saying "The timeline of a book/film series [...] is almost never going to be notable, no exceptions"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left out a couple of adjectives that I had meant to include in my reasoning. They've been included now. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then where are the reliable sources that saw fit to comment on this subject? Notable isn't the same as important or popular. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually suggesting that the Harry Potter series is popular but not notable? You don't think that there exist reliable sources covering some of the plot points, do you? Also, I'm not sure that you understand what WP:ILIKEIT means. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm suggesting that not every aspect of the series is notable. You've conflated this particular aspect of the series with the whole series. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you're trying to make a distinction between the notability of the series and the notability of the chronology, but my point is that there are enough reliable sources discussing certain aspects of the subject that make the subject notable. And, by the way, in a quick google search I was able to turn up this. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where are those reliable sources? This mentions no dates and does not place flashbacks or mentioned-in-passing historical events in any sort of order; it only summarizes the books, chapter by chapter. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going nowhere...agree to disagree, I guess. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's going nowhere because you're making sweeping general statements in response to a single, specific question. Unless and until there are reliable sources that saw fit to comment on this subject, it's just not notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's going nowhere because your constant hounding of me is growing tiresome. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article lacks of the independent sources necessary for WP:Verifiability. Almost all references are from the books or fan sites. Most importantly, it also lacks of notability, as there seem to be little, if any, coverage of the topic by reliable sources (the topic being the contradictions in the chronology of Harry Potter, not Harry Potter itself). Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 02:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fairly blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. It's also poorly sourced and of dubious notability. Reyk _YO! 05:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per DGG, and per author Rowling's and copyright owner Warner's creations of and acknowledgements of the timeline. Events in the books are not "dateless", and it is not O.R. to deduce that the 500th anniversary of a 1492 event would fall in 1992. Other dates are from documents created by Rowling and from interviews by her. This satisfies WP:V, and it is material closely related to a highly notable book series which would make the main articles on the books excessivly long if incorporated there. Edison (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:→KEEP – Not a "plot summary" by an means. If anything, it is a continuity-keeper of all the different plots. Already been kept in AfD once. Perhaps a policy on Timelines would be a good idea as well. Until then, there is MORE than enough reference material, as oft noted above, and it serves a particularly useful purpose. Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ^{15:49, 15 Aug 2008 (UTC)}

This user has been blocked for sock-puppeting. Dalejenkins | 10:01, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A continuity-keeper of all the different plots...in other words, a plot summary. Twisting the words doesn't change that. And there's plenty of references, true, but quality is more important than quantity. All that's referenced is primary sources and fansites (which, of course, aren't reliable sources). If you look at the original research policy, it clearly says "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors", which this isn't, because there aren't any secondary sources describing the chronology of Harry Potter events. Just Rowling's vast expanse of primary-source writings in the Harry Potter universe, and fansites that are technically secondary sources but aren't reliable ones. And no, there isn't any need for a special category for timelines, because there's plenty of timelines that would survive under the existing rules. I know the Lord of the Rings universe has enough reliable secondary sources to support a timeline article, I think the Star Trek universe does, Star Wars might (don't think so, though), Pokemon should, it's just that Harry Potter doesn't. What it all comes down to is that it isn't really Wikipedia's job to reconcile the various plot threads of the Potter universe, and saying that policy should be rewritten to accomodate it isn't a convincing point in an AfD. Gelmax (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a difference between OR and simple addition and subtraction, and this falls well in the realm of the latter. Besides that, there is the obvious fact that it is a collection of extremely notable elements from a notable series. Combined with the author's own acknowledgement of the timelines, I don't see how this doesn't pass verifiability by any standard. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the method used to produce the original research is straightforward, easy, and nearly impossible to screw up doesn't make it correct or reliable, especially when your only source is "any time Rowling wrote the word 'year'". Just because a date's alluded to in the canon doesn't mean it can't be retconned by a later work or isn't contradictory or just flat out wrong. Maybe someone tells Harry that something's going to happen on such and such a date and then it ends up happening earlier but it's not explicitly mentioned in the book. Bam, the canon isn't explicitly wrong but the OR is. Heck, I even found an example of this in the Harry Potter universe after less than two minutes of browsing through the fansite "sources". This is why OR is not reliable. Gelmax (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OR lies in the construction of an entire topic. Were there third-party sources to establish so much as the mere existence of that timeline as a real-world fact, I'd consider keeping this. But as it is, the very topic of this article is the product of some Wikipedia editors' work. Not good. user:Everyme 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly in-universe and OR. user:Everyme 01:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources such as Waco Tribune-Herald and The Harry Potter Companion (containing a 52-page chapter on the timeline of events). It is stretching far beyond the intent of the original research policy to suggest we can't ever synthesize information from multiple sources; synthesis is only becomes original research if editors are trying to advance a position. As long as we present information in a neutral way based on the information we can derive from sources (including information derived from sources and simple arithmetical computations, which any editor can reliably verify and confirm), we do not run afoul of the prohibition on original research. Where sources agree about where events belong in the Harry Potter timeline, they can unequivocally be put in their proper place in this article. Where they don't, NPOV can be applied and the events can be listed separately from the main chronology, indicating where the different sources place them, or footnotes can indicate where sources conflict with the timeline. There are enough reliable sources to improve this article without necessitating original research, and so it should not be deleted. It is also looking into a crystal ball to suggest that articles would be original research because later "official" sources may conflict with the current sources available. For example, 2012 Summer Olympics won't become "original research" if war breaks out and the Olympics are cancelled; the article would simply need to be updated as new sources become available. DHowell (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of available U.S. stamp denominations

This article has not cited any sources for over a year. I finally found a reliable source [13], which makes it clear that the denominations listed on this page are wildly out of date. This article will probably never be anything substantially more than the table on that page, and will likely suffer from neglect and become outdated and hence useless. Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If this article is kept, at a minimum it must be rewritten to reflect currently available denominations, and it should be tidied up with some connecting prose so that it's at least a little better than the table from the USPS site. It seems to me, however, that it could easily be deleted and replaced with a link to the relevant USPS page, which will always be more up-to-date than Wikipedia can be. —Bkell (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to believe a properly sourced (and accurate!) version of this could be merged somewhere; it seems that we would have a logical article where this information would fit. If that were the case, a redirect from this title would be in order. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time I think there was a sentence or two somewhere (maybe WP:NOT) which specifically gave bus schedules or train timetables as information which was not appropriate for Wikipedia, but I can't find it now. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, I would appreciate a link, to satisfy my frustration and because I think this is quite similar. —Bkell (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per Nom, lack of notability, and especially WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A reference or external link to the source cited by the nom from say, Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_the_United_States would sufficiently incorporate this info into WP—a whole article is not needed. Yilloslime (t) 01:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why would there even be a list of amounts you can by stamps in? That is what usps.com is for. Wikipeida is not a Directory If not delete, then Merge to History of United States Postal Service rates at the bottom section with the current stamp amount. Ctjf83Talk 03:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides what others have said, we can not have a list like this for every nation that issues stamps. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to High School Musical 3: Senior Year (soundtrack). Keeper ǀ 76 21:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now or Never (High School Musical song)

Unreleased single with no assertion of notability Sceptre ^(talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC) The song is the first single off the soundtrack which is why it was premiered in the first place and it should not be deleted Hsm7 ^(talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High_School_Musical_3:_Senior_Year. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High School Musical 3: Senior Year per above. Dalejenkins | 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. PhilKnight (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to High School Musical 3: Senior Year (soundtrack). Keeper ǀ 76 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Want It All (High School Musical song)

No assertion of notability or release as a single. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 04:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High_School_Musical_3:_Senior_Year. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High_School_Musical_3:_Senior_Year. Fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS.
Kww (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to High School Musical 3: Senior Year per above comments. Dalejenkins | 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. This discussion requires the attention of an expert in the subject; as most of the opinions here came with a built-in disclaimer. If somebody can locate an authoritative reference on this subject or an expert who can shed some light on the matter, then it would be wise to relist this at that time. As it was, however, there was no consensus for deletion, and the deletion policy advises we lean toward keep in such situations. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altino

I suspect this article may either be a hoax or a product of original research. I am fairly knowledgeable in this field of study and I have never heard of the term altino before. Likewise, I have searched several vocal pedagogy texts and books on countertenors and have found no reference to the term. Nrswanson (talk) 00:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a term for countertenor used in Italy called a tenor altino (but never just altino) but the usage and definition are not synonymous with the description in this article. Otherwise I would suggest a merge. As it is deletion is best.Nrswanson (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs investigation The article is 3 years old, started by an editor with history of productive edits. Annette46 (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be that as it may, the article has no sources. No responses have been made to tags or to questions about authenticity on the article's talk page. The article edit history is also incredibly short and the article is virtually uncategorized even if it is three years old.Nrswanson (talk) 05:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with countertenors, that should get a wider knowledgeable audience Annette46 (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the information was referenced I could see doing that but I think it is ill advised to merge possibly false information.Nrswanson (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appears to be controversy on the countertenors article over tenor altinos vis=a=vis hautecontres. This URL supports that altino is one of the 5 main classes of counter tenor.Annette46 (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's a copy paste from an old version of the wikipedia countertenor article. lol Not exactly a reliable source. Better editors with actual references have worked long and hard on the article sense. Nrswanson (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an opera expert, but after reviewing your considerable edit history of single purpose edits on the subject of opera /music, its better we involve the larger community on this to guard against possible POV pushing. Annette46 (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. I think we all know what a WP:SPA is. It's not used for a specialist editor like Nrswanson who has edited and written many different articles relating to voice, opera and music. This particular article is a technical one - hence we need to involve editors with appropriate knowledge (and access to reference books). Technical knowledge has nothing to do with (quote) "possible POV pushing" (unquote). --Klein zach 09:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is rather an unfair comment. Rather than distract the conversation here I will respond on your talk page.Nrswanson (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was not personal. By googling I find quite a few references to tenor altino such as Google Book:The Wordsworth Book of Opera,1995. Why not move the article to tenor altino with a link to/from counter tenor ? Annette46 (talk) 08:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not really a good idea. Peter Giles in his book The Countertenor, says that the term tenor altino is the italian word for countertenor. It's not really a subtype of countertenor but just the italian word for countertenor. That's why this article is a little odd because it's trying the turn tenor altino into a sub voice type of countertenor (which is not an italian word or term by the way). If references can be found to show that the term tenor altino is different than countertenor than I would support creating a new article. A lot of the difficulty with voice type pages is that there are several different terms in different languages used. Sometimes the terms are directly synonymous and sometimes they are not. It can get complicated. I think the best thing to do is find an editor with good sources. I posted a note at the opera project and hopefully some more knowledgable people will come and join the conversation and/or add references.Nrswanson (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nrswanson. I've had a look in the Oxford Dictionary of Opera and can't find this term. If Annette46 can find a solid reference I'd be happy to reconsider but the mixture of unbacked information about singing, speaking and low testosterone levels hardly inspires any confidence in this information. --Klein zach 09:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest either way, except to see that possibly true but controversial material is not deleted. I quite understand [[User:Nrswanson]'s point. But, I also see that the article Altino is trying to convey that altino is the 'true' countertenor, which is also a controversy on countertenors. Personally I am at this time inclined to believe that altino => tenor altino => counter tenor, and there are no other forms of countertenor (like hautecontres). I am surprised though that Ralph Appelman's Vocal Pedagogy has nothing (google books searchable) on either countertenors or altinos. Annette46 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is surprising. I pulled up my copy in my personal library. He doesn't spend much time on the subject. Some notable tid bits here and there but there isn't a whole chapter dedicated to the subject and not a mention of altino that I can find.Nrswanson (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a passage from the 'Tenor' article in Grove by Jander, Steane and Forbes: "A highly specialized type of tenor is the tenor altino (or contraltino) which extends into the treble region without breaking into falsetto." --Klein zach 10:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... that complicates things because now we have it defined as a sub-type of tenor (much like the French haute-contre and Italian tenore di grazia) but with wording that could easily equate it with some definitions of countertenors by other authors. Regardless, this is still "tenor altino" and not just "altino".Nrswanson (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term is not known in reference works. As it stands, without any reliable sources or references, the article look more like 'original research' and thus falls by WP:OR. (In addition, the reference to Klinefelter's syndrome, of which the WP article tells us only 10 cases have ever been recorded, and which is in no way substantiated, gives me that hoaxy feeling). As to merging - what genuine info does the article have to merge?Smerus (talk) 10:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the third meaning given in it:Altino which has been there since December 2006; that definition seems to support this article. Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that as well, but it's only a red link so it hardly amounts to anything. --Klein zach 13:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate Having read this 1998 web article on Countertenors I am not convinced that the term altino can be dismissed as unnotable. And the term has an identity / usage separate and distinct from countertenor. The case of Russel Oberlin as an altino is controversial on many websites and specialist groups. But I am not an expert. Annette46 (talk) 12:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website you refer to says Oberlin is a tenor altino. We've acknowledged that this is an authentic term, see my quote from Grove above. You might argue that 'altino' is an abbreviation of 'tenor altino' that wouldn't justify a separate article, only a redirect at best. --Klein zach 13:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, but the website does define "tenor / altino" and freely uses these terms interchangeably - separately or in conjunction. Is it possible that the Peter Giles book(s) is responsible for altering the pedagogy of these various terms / voices for countertenor, and seeing Giles to be the main ref for countertenor? Based on this website, the article is not ruled out as a hoax or original research, but the contents of the article certainly need rigorous scrutiny for reliable sources. "tenor altino" being an authentic term, this article can be redirected to "tenor altino" which is now increasingly looking as being nuanced differently from "countertenor". Annette46 (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found some more on the tenor altino in the Giles book, it basically supports what's in Grove and expands it a bit. I think the point he was trying to make by saying the term is basically the term for countertenor is because the term "tenor altino" is often placed as a sub-division of tenor within the Italian vocal classification, a practice not done in other classification systems. I don't think there was any attmept by Giles to redefine the term. His work is considered one of the best studies done on the subject of the countertenor by those in the music history field. Again, trying to equate terms across different cattegoral systems in different countries is not always easy. That aside, the information in this article, however, is definitey not accurate and seems to be a POV push by the original author to give the term tenor altino more weight over other terms that developed outside of Italy. There is also a lot of dubious scientific explanations in this article. I think we can and should discuss the term more thoroughly at the countertenor and/or tenor articles but a merger here is not warranted sense this article has multiple factual errors, is a POV push, and is poorly written. I would not even suggest a redirect at this point sense a consensus among editors at the countertenor and tenor articles will have to make a decision as to which page the article should redirect to. On the outside chance that the page is kept, the title should be changed to its proprer name, "tenor altino".Nrswanson (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nrswanson. That's a good summary. This is art not science. There will be differences in interpretation. The problem here is not to define tenor altino (Italian) in terms of countertenor (English), but to decide if this 'Altino' article has reliable information that should be in the encyclopedia. --Klein zach 00:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Somewhat I agree with Nrswanson that the article be renamed as tenor altino and all unreliable contents be expunged. I disagree with Kleinzach that "this is art not science"; the standard reference book on Science of Vocal Pedagogy by D Ralph Appelman (avail. google books) while exploring subdivisions such as "alto tenors" , "mezzo sopranos" etc has nothing on "countertenors" reinforcing my suspicion that perhaps "countertenor" itself is a hoax /OR - being a recent genteelism for variants of "falsettist" or neo-"castriati" Annette46 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annette46 forgive me but that last comment made me laugh out loud. Particularly sense the word countertenor is actually hundreds of years older than the word falsettist which is a term than came in vogue during the 20th century. The term countertenor was derived from the 15th century term contratenor which was one of the part names in four part polyphonic writing. It is an English term and the earliest examples of usage in writing date back to the mid 17th Century. By the time of Henry Purcell (who frequently used the term countertenor on his manuscripts/scores which still exist) the word was in wide use within England. Also. the reason why Appelman uses the term "science" is because he was one of the earliest vocal pedagogists to apply modern scientific knowledge and research regarding human anatomy to the study of singing by using laryngealscope technology and other modern advances that help us better understand the physiological process behind singing. Vocal classification systems pre-date that science and Appelman himself points out that there is an art to singing that goes beyond the science. Also, here is a link to an amazon music search for countertenor for further verifiability. [14]Nrswanson (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment is what an average reader would glean from countertenor on the lines of "a countertenor is the male equivalent of a mezzo soprano, singing parts previously written for falsettists and castriati. The term enjoying a modern revival after being popularised by Peter Giles' book - Giles being a "countertenor" himself and thereby not sufficiently RS to the extent that without Giles as a prop/source the countertenor article collapses under the weight of its own contradictions". However, all this has nothing to do with altino Annette46 (talk) 05:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see where you got confused. And I have a problem with the assertion of that statement in the article since falsettist is a 20th century term. Looks like some re-writing needs to be done. It is true, however, that the countertenor had a resurgence in popularity in castrati roles. I have only contributed nominally to the countertenor article, so most of that page is the work of other editors. If you read the first section of the article the "countertenor in history" it does explain when the term came into usage, although it could be made more plain and expanded. The lead should really be re-written as well to be more clear on that fact. But again we are off topic.Nrswanson (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zenra

The previous debate was based on a WP:NOT argument stating its apparent dictionary definition nature. Some held a keep - wait and see what we'll find position. The only credible-sounding source that we found was a WaiWai column article from the Mainichi Daily News. However, this column was cancelled (Mainichi Daily News#WaiWai_controversy_and_cancellation) due to its questionable quality and other issues. Yet again, we face a lack of credible source for the notability argument. I request a deletion for the same argument: "zenra" is merely Japanese for total nudity. The term in Japanese Wikipedia merely redirects to the nudity article over there. As it stands, it is a foreign word dictionary definition that falls under WP:NOT. Tokek (talk) 00:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources for verification do not seem to have been forthcoming, so per the previous outcome, Delete (or possibly follow jawiki precident and redirect to nudity). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There was ample opportunity provided to validate this article last time and it did not happen, and does not appear it is going to happen. Wikipedia does not work on a deadline, but on that same token we can't keep non-verifiable articles around indefinitely. Sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by the nom. Kevin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for a Secure Driver's License

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Coalition for a Secure Driver's License

None of the references given have more than passing, trivial mentions, therefore failing WP:CORP. Kevin (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I don't approve of this organization's politics, they are notable. The version nominated for the AfD was created by an SPA and was indeed very unbalanced in terms of NPOV. I tried to clean it up to get rid of the POV slant and I have added some references. GoggleNews gives 81 hits for them[15]. Much of the coverage is indeed not detailed (although nontrivial), but some of it is detailed and specifically about this organization and its activities. E.g. these references related to their controversial 2005 billboard campaign are in that category:[16][17][18]. They are still in the news, e.g. see this July 30, 2008[19]. The organization passes WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I feel a little lazy for not doing a better search myself. I'll withdraw, based on your fixup. Kevin (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although a very common misconception, the subject-specific supplemental notability guidelines are an adjunct to WP:N, and do not trump or contradict WP:N. These supplemental guidelines were established by consensus to keep articles that may not meet the vague criteria of WP:N. They allow obviously-notable subject articles to be kept even if there was little or no coverage in independent sources. But by no means do they override the notability that is otherwise established by WP:N; in this case the respondents demonstrated sufficient coverage in independent sources, WP:MUSIC notwithstanding. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted (Ace Young song)

Song didn't chart, seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 03:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added six references, including a review of the single in Billboard. I would say it's enough to pass WP:N notability. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Basic notability shown with references. -MrFizyx (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Roth (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asher Roth}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World War III (card game)}}