Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 July 19

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xrblsnggt (talk | contribs) at 01:35, 19 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< July 18 July 20 >

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 for now. The one claim to her notability is cited at her IAFD entry. There are a handful more delete opinions than keeps. It does not meet WP:PORN BIO, but in a few months that will be made official, and she'll have more notability (more movies,) and this discussion will prove to be rather academic. (I'll undelete the basic info for you then if you remind me.) Grandmasterka 03:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Loren

Non-notable. Of course, there are hundreds of non-notable articles in the porn actor category. Not all of them, I gather, but most. I think those should probably be AFD'd as well. --BradBeattie 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Incorrect, I would say that it does meet WP:PORN BIO ~ true, not in 100 films, but it says "in or around" which to my mind 90 is "around" 100. In any case by the amount of films that these people turn out she will be iron-clad signed and sealed notable per this proposed "standard" within 6 months! -- Librarianofages 02:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
where is the evidence that she has done 90 videos? The external links indicate 50. Not that this is sufficient for inclusion Bwithh
  • Comment I just clicked on the IADB link and it quickly stated 90 Titles. The IMDB has 43 titles. Many people on this 'pedia have just one or two items in the IMDB and are more marginally qualified. I re-assert my KEEP 216.141.226.190 16:01, 23 July 2006 (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. Mailer Diablo 15:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medina neighborhoods

These areas described as neighborhoods in Medina County, Ohio are nothing more than mere housing subdivisions. Although the notability guidelines do not address places, I expect that a subdivision must display some special significance (which these do not) in order to justify an article. If not, Wikipedia would be overrun with articles on individual subdivisions and gated communities. - EurekaLott 00:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would support a Keep or Merge. Delete seems a little harsh for information that does indeed follow wiki criteria/guidelines. 152.163.100.74 19:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to allow clear consensus to develop. - brenneman {L} 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Luxurious" was used simply because many of the homes have a value of $1+ million - But if that term is a problem I will be happy to remove it.
For future reference when writing an article, a specific (that the homes are $1 mill+) is always better than what many Wikipedians consider "weasel words" like luxurious. Jacqui★ 17:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...even better, you used a perfect example of weasel words in the response above (i.e. "what many Wikipedians consider") ;) ;) 152.163.100.74 16:18, 2 August 2006 (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. Mailer Diablo 10:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hullabahoos

I think this band fails WP:MUSIC - Their website claims they have released 12 albums, but there is nowt at amazon and the same result at discogs DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 00:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Librarianofages. Voice of Treason 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Librarianofages' comments. Scorpiondollprincess 13:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Where do you see any of these sub-culture publications/reviews? I'd like to see some reliable sources used in the article. As it is right now the article looks like original research. Wickethewok 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in my grumpier moments (like, now) i look at articles like this and almost conclude the writer wanted to get the article deleted. It's written in such a fashion as to obscure what facts there are, much less provide citations and sources for those facts. I started with the same questions of this being a hoax or not. The group does exist, but you have to search through the University of Virginia's website to find it, and apparently the 12 albums exist but were produced privately, and they aren't for sale on Amazon (wow, what a concept). This isn't helped by the fact the CARA website didn't make it easy for me to finally find award-winners from 2005, but I eventually verified that bit. I take away three lessons here: One, editors should be aware that Google and Amazon are not the final arbiters of notability, which should be judged in context of all notability requirements; Two, writers should at least read an encyclopedia before trying to write one, and; three, I'm far too grumpy to care if this article sinks or swims, and shall therefore not vote at all. Tychocat 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seriously, every university has an a capella group that goes around singing The Nylons tunes and whatnot. They are always popular because they are crooners. They usually record and sell albums (which is something that anyone can do, having a publishing/distributing deal is the real business), and they are usually hired to sing all over the place. But, why is that notable? They don't usually write their own songs, even - their albums are all cover tunes. --Aguerriero (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep against nom per Librarianofages Antares33712 18:51, 21 July 2006 (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. Mailer Diablo 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Opera

Only 7 ghits for this Rock Opera with the artists name - WP:NN rock opera DavidHumphreysSPEAK TO MEABOUTTHE THINGS I MESSED UP 01:00, 19 July 2006 (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. Mailer Diablo 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University College Cork YFG

Does not sufficiently assert the importance of this particular branch of the Young Fine Gael. See WP:ORG SarekOfVulcan 01:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure it is: it's done all the time on AfD.--SarekOfVulcan 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Kevin 09:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 35

The article says only that: This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 35. I think this might be a copyvio if that is the case. Listcruft and all the links in the article are red. SynergeticMaggot 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Withdraw nom. I was unaware of other the rest of these articles at the time, but still feel its unencyclopedic. SynergeticMaggot 06:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC) *Delete per my nom and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SynergeticMaggot 01:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, the user shouldn't be creating lists full of redlinks. He should be creating the pages, then adding the lists. If this page does get deleted, it can always be recreated at a later date whenever the named pages get created. Fabricationary 02:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always hate it when people use the Wikipedia is not paper argument, but I think it applies here. Most of the problems with lists don't apply here. Many lists are POV, or inherently not complete or comprehensive. Doesn't apply here. I don't know why half a dozen of the volumes are missing, but that seems easily remediable. I don't see a problem with keeping these lists, even if the process of blueing the links is only 10% done in ten years. Fan-1967 02:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this project is, in fact, encylopedic in a very real sense, and these may be quite useful, even if only one or two notable cases in each volume ever get blue-linked. Looks like these are a framework. Fan-1967 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the volume number is the reporter volume reference number; since the actual lists are obviously products of public institutions I'm not sure why there is a copyvio inference. The list would appear to be a working list that is actively being worked to fill; I'm sure many of the entries are more than notable. Kuru talk 02:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There is no copyright violation here and the content is encyclopedic. The volume refers to the public domain, U.S.-government published United States Reports, the official case reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States. Far from "indiscriminate," listing the cases decided by the highest court in the United States is clearly an encyclopedic venture, and organizing them by the manner in which they were published is one of many sensible ways to do this. I've already used these lists as an aid in writing articles. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases is organized and active to address how to better improve and maintain these lists, including changing the titles. Postdlf 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it may also help standardize case naming conventions. Rklawton 03:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is a minor issue. I happened to find an entry in one of these articles (volume 60, for 1857) with a blue link to United States v. Stewart. Stewart is a common name, and the article linked to is for 2005. But, I'll let the fine people on this Wikiproject address issues like that. Fan-1967 03:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please show me the copyvio. If there is none, it is an encyclopedic entry and, even if filled with red links, serves as a to do list for Wikipedia contributors. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Postdlf. There is no copyvio as this is a work of the US government and is thus not covered by copyright (the Court has several of the newer volumes, though not this particular volume, freely accessible on their website, for goodness sake). Given that the reporters, indicated by the volume numbers, are essentially chronologically ordered, this is basically a "portion of a chronological list of SCOTUS cases." Far from an indiscriminate collection of information. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: No. When I nominated it, I was not aware that there were 50-80 articles more just like it (which should be deleted also). Why there needs to be a list of Supreme Sourt cases is beyond my scope. They should be turned into a category at best. The entire article is filled with no information other than a list of court cases which 1, arent even notable, and 2, arent even articles. I fail to see how this is encyclopedic, or how it helps Wikipedia. I wont be withdrawing my nom. Plus, I never said it was a copyvio, but that it might be. It reads like it was copied directly from a source. SynergeticMaggot 04:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I've never liked these lists full of redlinks when we already have these lists full of bluelinks, but I'm persuaded by Postdlf's arguments about use as a research tool and for identifying repeated case names. The relevant wikiproject's coverage of cases heavily trends toward recent cases; if there were a list like this for volume 541 (from two years ago), it'd be full of bluelinks. Eventually we may extend our coverage to cover important older cases, but we haven't yet. I also think the nominator is misapplying WP:NOT. It says "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not:" and then goes on to list eleven specifics. Claiming an article that isn't one of those eleven specifics is an indiscriminate collection of information does not make it so.--Chaser T 04:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not misapplying it. I didnt point to a statement in the header "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", I quoted the statement and pointed to the policy page. Because this is a clear statement none the less. SynergeticMaggot 04:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a clear statement, but the policy specifically applies in eleven limited areas. This article is none of those eleven. Which specific section of WP:NOT are you asserting this is in violation of?--Chaser T 04:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I think the confusion is that I was quoting from the preamble for the header you mentioned. There are eleven specific types of indiscriminate collections of information. This isn't one of them.--Chaser T 04:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Personally, I think this is terrific, and it seems to me the easier thing to do is to make the list first and then work on the individual cases. Not everyone who wants this kind of information can afford LexisNexis or Westlaw. While WP obviously can't compete with those services (and shouldn't), this information is useful to those who need it. If a list of SCOTUS cases isn't encyclopedic, neither are the lists for the anime characters, or the professional wrestlers, or the video games, or movies that start with the letter 'B', and on and on. It can't be written overnight, either. There are some editors who can thoughtfully analyze these cases and many more who can't, but at least it's a start. Just my two cents. - Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 04:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is why lists > categories for material that isn't created yet, but should be. --Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. -- H·G (words/works) 08:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep Not indiscriminate, the only delete vote was per nom, and the nom has now been withdrawn, so effectively noone now wants to delete this. --ais523 08:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Kunz

Fails WP:BIO. Chief claim on her in the body of the article is being executive director of the Center for Adoption Policy Studies—which does not have an article. [ETA: Article was enhanced to mention four books she authored. Three are on university presses. None of them have an Amazon sales rank higher than 1.2 million. 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)] Article was prodded previously, put to clean up, but the article kept coming up with non-notable biographical information. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Following WP:BE BOLD, I'm closing this as a keep because the subject of the article unambiguously meets notability criteria as the author of significant books from major publishers and because the article was effectively vandalized to remove all mention of a well-known controversy over tenure at Yale in which she was a central figure. I've devandalized the article. Google "Diane Kunz Yale" and find a few dozen articles about the controversy. You can also check any reliable book review index to see she meets that notability criterion, even though the nom says otherwise, unless you think "multiple" means more than two dozen. VivianDarkbloom 00:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-opened the debate as it was clearly closed in violation of deletion policy. I didn't want to censor VivianDarkbloom's comments, so I have moved them here. Kevin 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 10:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newshounds Furry Webcomic Characters

This is a multiple nomination for a bunch of furry webcomic characters from the Webcomic Newshounds. The articles nominated are:

Newshounds is a long running webcomic hosted on Keenspot. I am not discussing its notability or encyclopedic value at this point, but that of their characters. Whereas I'm sure factual nuggets such as how Kevin J Dog met his bitch at a Rowan Atkinson autograph session, I absolutely fail to see how it is encyclopedic. How many professional sources have written about the characters of Newgrounds? What kind of influences have they had over other works? I'm sure actual journalists working in the real world have written extensively about Asterix, and the nature of Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes). What they haven't done is comment on how Wolfram Blitzen was worried about not having a shoetree for his shoes. This is a textbook example of fancruft, appeals to only those entrenched in the series already. I am NOT proposing a merge, as I believe that Newshounds#Characters covers the characters in suitable depth already. - Hahnchen 01:32, 19 July 2006 (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. Mailer Diablo 10:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koji Baba

Notable? This article appears to be abandoned. --Xrblsnggt 01:35, 19 July 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_19&oldid=64579178"