Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:44, 28 February 2008

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

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 Speedy Keep, bad faith nom. GlassCobra 09:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sobrante Park, Oakland, California

Sobrante Park, Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced and has been so since December, 2007. It does not assert its notability and what it does assert is not verifiable. The article is riddled with BLP violations which make unsubstantiated claims that this is the most dangerous neighborhood of all of Oakland. The article is written horribly with statements like "It is somewhat like a maze, as there is one way in, and one way out." are extremely sophomoric and just poorly stated. BLP violations also include its alleged reputation for "heroin dealings" which should probably be stated as heroin sales or illicit street sales of the drug heroin. Anyway, this article just doesn't meet WP:N and its been around long enough with enough cleanup and unreferenced templatage to assume it's not going to happen any time soon. Cholga 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet notice: the nominator of this article is a suspected abusive sockpuppet account. Please see Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove.Wikidemo (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, this article should be deleted since it does not meet WP:N and has serious BLP violations and does not have any RS.Cholga 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment BLP deals with living people, it does not apply here. V-train (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:N and WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - No sources, questionable notability. V-train (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to East Oakland, Oakland, California. May want to consider simular actions for some of the articles at East Oakland, Oakland, California#Neighborhoods Jeepday (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed and keeping the recommendation to merge and redirect to East Oakland, Oakland, California. Jeepday (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete 75.170.194.130 (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• I have removed the contentious and unsourced material. There is nothing left but the name. Delete. SilkTork * 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that the article has been well sourced, and with the ghits that WikiDemo shows, I change to Merge to East Oakland, Oakland, California. If and when the article develops beyond the statement that it's a rough neighbourhood of East Oakland, then it can be broken out in summary style into its own stand alone article. But at the moment it can grow in context within the parent article where it will be seen by more people. SilkTork * 08:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy close and keep - likely bad faith nomination by abusive sockpuppet (see above). Also, neighborhood is clearly notable. I've added one source and some material but if you want 800 news stories and 17,000 hits, try google. Short, poorly written articles should be improved, not deleted - and definitely not gamed by sockpuppets.Wikidemo (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and Speedy Close - nominator blocked indef. as sockpuppet. Bash Kash (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but barely- tough call, and clearly some issues with this whole nom. I think for now it just needs to be thrown out for bad faith, until someone else is happy to nominate it.JJJ999 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 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, with no prejudice against merging and redirecting. The key here is nobody is saying delete (except of course the nominator). If merging and redirecting end up being the final resting place for the awards, so be it, but that discussion should happen on the talk pages of the two respective articles. Closing as keep. Merging and redirecting are non-admin procedures, but a consensus should exist prior to a controversial move. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Golden Spider Awards

Golden Spider Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable internet award. Only news sources I can find are press releases. Smashville 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into Business & Finance, the magazine that hosts and manages the awards. Also, on a related note, while Business & Finance is apparently a notable magazine, it needs to be urgently cleaned up.--TBC!?! 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Business & Finance. Insufficient notability for a separate page. BlueValour (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per others. Hard to establish notability and context in the separate article. • Anakin 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Actually the awards do get coverage in the news when they come out; for example, here are a few mentions on the RTÉ website (here and here) and there is normally print coverage. (Personal Observation/opinion in passing: Again, another example of how useless Google News is in finding Irish media stories.) Actually I didn't realize that they were organized by Business and Finance; I would have associated them more with the sponsors Eircom (and previous sponsors BT.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The awards are well known and in addition to the last contributor's examples, are also covered by technology websites (here) and on national radio. 1-555-confide (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge and redirect. It has some coverage in reliable sources, but a merger is probably better until it gets more coverage to prove it is notable. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 7 March 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 Delete. Tiptoety 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

WhipKraft

WhipKraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google hits yield 665 results, which none, except for the pages listed on the wiki page, come up. There are a few pages that mention the band, but they are non notable in themselves. The "reviews" of the band are trivial and short. They do not provide any sufficient information about the band. No notable label or tours. Delete Undeath (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No assertion of notability Beeblbrox (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Not notable. Enigma 02:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT Delete' Very Poorly written page, but band is significant in underground aspects. Google yelds 1,300 results, in which several sources are significant. Page needs rewriting not deletion. Zzstore

• Searching Google News archives and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles does not yield any new sources. The band's lead singer Vena Kava's article is also somewhat dubious in its notability. Delete if no sources turn up. --Paul Erik 01:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik 01:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no sources, no information that could show the band's notability. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 4 March 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.