Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 August 12 August >

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. The consensus is that there is insufficient evidence that the company meets the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Helicopter[edit]

Sterling Helicopter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article says the company is notable for having a helipad. I don't think this really makes them notable. No other indications of importance or significance. — Timneu22 · talk 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Having the only public-use heliport in Philadelphia is the very definition of technical significance. Please bear in mind that although the information contained in this article may not be relevant to you in particular, there are Wikipedians who use private helicopter transport. Information pertaining to the location and operator of a public heliport in a major city such as Philadelphia is particularly relevant to such people. Ewgross (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete + Speedy, needs serious expansion and significant supporting evidence to establish notability. If the notability of the heliport can be proven, I suggest that the article is moved to the name of the heliport rather than the name of the operating company, but in current state, it needs to go completely. Crazy-dancing (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agreed that article needs expansion. However, the article is still founded upon something which is relevant to a particular group of people. Don't demolish the house while it's still being built [[1]] Ewgross (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • — Ewgross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. , but every editor has to start somewhere - where else than creating a small article with a small, yet still substantiated relevance? Just because the method of transport is not common, such as Septa and their bus service, does not make it irrelevant.
      • Comment: Ewgross, you say "don't demolish the house while it's still being built", but can I just point out that whilst you seem very quick to reply to comments on this page, you haven't made any further attempt to improve the article. Not much building going on! As it stands, this article does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines on notability, so if you want it kept, I suggest you spend less time arguing the toss here and concentrate your energies on the article instead. Expand it, establish notability, add references etc and people will be more willing to support it.
      • Indeed. Ewgross, we all understand your position here. I suggest you do two things, if you truly want this article to remain: 1) Fix the article.
  • Merge - the suggestion about turning this page into an article about the heliport, instead of the operating company, sounds like a good idea. I am adding references and information on the heliport at Pier 36. I can certainly understand why the heliport is more notable than the company behind it. Ewgross (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ewgross, you only get one opinion. I have moved this. — Timneu22 · talk 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2) Stop replying to everyone's comment here. It's just tiring. — Timneu22 · talk 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re: "Does a helipad make this repair company notable? " This article is about a company with the singular, only public-use helipad in a major city, which is not just "a helipad" as you state. Ewgross (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two words for you Ewgross - PROVE IT! If this helipad is not "just" a helipad, and is significant as you claim, then find us the proof from reliable third party sources and I will help you sort out the article as best I can. Either way, the company definitely does not appear to meet Wikipedias notability guidelines, so it will certainly have to be moved to a new title, perhaps Penn's Landing Pier 36 Heliport Crazy-dancing (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Zero refs and only claim to notability above is the fact that they operate a helipad. The helipad is not the subject of the article, I note. I doubt it would pass muster either. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making this a memorable first article experience, especially Timneu22, whose snide and condescending remarks about the defense of my first stab at an article being "tiring" will help me to become a better person. Wikipedia:BITE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewgross (talk • contribs) 18:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This will probably sound like I'm biting as well, but hey ho - For someone who is supposedly new to Wikipedia, you seem to have familiarised yourself very quickly with out behavioural guidelines (Wikipedia:BITE) and guidance essays (Wikipedia:Don't Demolish the house). Instead of wasting your time and our time, how about quitting with the sniping and familiarise yourself with something useful, like Wikipedia:Notability, or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Crazy-dancing (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I did was nominate an article for AfD, according to our policies. If you consider that "biting", well I don't care. Your willingness to comment on everyone else's vote without making changes to the article? That's not helpful to the community. Congrats on citing policy. No one is impressed. — Timneu22 · talk 19:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as the article now stands, Penn's Landing Pier 36 Heliport is the legitimate title. It looks like it may even be worth keeping. — Timneu22 · talk 19:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree subject to further supporting evidence being found from a reliable source. Have had a look myself, but can't find much, so I think it's up to User:Ewgross to find something more. Crazy-dancing (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that some organization has "the only X in location Y" is nowhere to be found in the guidelines for notability]. Edison (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's some coverage here and this article has some interesting information that could be used to expand our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Phil Bridger's sources have not been assessed yet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This article fails WP:COMPANY (corporate notability) but could be re-written to meet WP:Airports as per information in http://www.airnav.com/airport/P72 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Phil Bridger's sources may just be enough for WP:CORP here, although it depends what constitutes significant coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs serious improvement, with more reliable sources and a clean-up - however I think totally deleting the article is going too far. I see no reason why the article cannot exist - it just needs improvement. IainUK talk 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources mentioned in this discussion do not satisfy the "significant coverage" criteria.--PinkBull 19:55, 18 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

J . Lloyd Morgan[edit]

J . Lloyd Morgan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability as no reliable third-party sources provided. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (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. The consensus is that the lack of independent reliable sources means that this band does not meet the criteria for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Angel[edit]

Danger Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Billboard link brings up a whole lot of "not available" nothing. Nothing else I can find that indications notability. Shadowjams (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also take a look at User:TezCope, the OP account has similar links to the other creations. Shadowjams (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell why Billboard has removed the article that was used for the reference in the first place, in any case I will remove it as a reference. However, since this is not the only reference to the article's notability, I can direct you to all the other references that prove notability. You can read the arguments on a previous deletion suggestion that resulted as "non consensus" to see how notability on this article is argumented. If you still need clarification, please follow up. Thanks Alexpts (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On TenPoundHammer's comment: I never referenced any wikipedia article on the Danger Angel article. Please specify. Oh I saw it, I am removing it promptly. Did not know this rule. Please, explain why you consider all sources unreliable. All sources are credible, certified media. Please, explain. Alexpts (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Billboard reference issue. Billboard reference is active and valid Alexpts (talk) 11:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable enough, but the band doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. JJ98 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the following criteria according to WP:MUSIC:

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1] This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following...

6. Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.

12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.

Alexpts (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions for Alexpts
  • 1. which coverage do you think has them being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable?
  • 6. Who are these two members? I see none.
  • 11. Where is any evidence of rotation?
  • 12. What half-hour or longer broadcast are you refering to? duffbeerforme (talk)


  • 1. I list several independent media that have published articles on Danger Angel, either in the form of an album review, an interview or live reports. Those media are in no way connected to the band. I have referenced media from around the world.
  • 6. Members ( at the time of recordings) are Jeff Scott Soto (Journey, talisman, Y. Malmsteen etc.) and Mark Cross (Helloween, Firewind, Kingdom come etc.). Some are internet publications and some printed press. The printed press media is Rock Hard, an edition that is released in several countries around Europe. I have not included any articles that are just referring to the band or the band's events. All such references are either dedicated articles, interviews or reviews by unbiased media.
  • 11/12. I have referenced rotation by at least one French open air radio station and two web radios out of different countries and I have included the airplays. However, I am not sure I know how to reference open air broadcasts in the article since all radio broadcasts are done and out when finished. Do I have to procure recordings of some kind? The band has appeared in at least 12 radio shows during the past three months, in nationwide radios in Greece in the forms of interviews and presentations. I really don't know how I can materialize such a thing into a reference. If I just put it there is not really proof, is it? If you know a way, please, let me know how to do it.

Alexpts (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Verryth[edit]

Mark Verryth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not a notable junior player and to date not a notable enough senior player (by far) Mayumashu (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Withdrawn nomination with three unanimous "delete" !votes. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even with WP:NTENNIS being a relatively new guideline, and being subject to some shifting around on the line in the sand for notability, I don't see how this player would meet even any changed guideline barring a huge shift in the criteria. Let's start by eliminating any general notability. Coverage about him is essentially match / tournament results reporting. So really, the only notability would be through the sports specific guidelines. His ATP record shows that he is playing primarily Futures events. There's only two non-futures event. The Baton Rouge Challenger event was a loss in the first round of qualifying which is a far cry from the criteria set out of winning at least one Challenger event title. The closest he comes is losing in the first round qualifier in Atlanta which is part of the 250. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet any of the WP:NTENNIS criteria. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:52, 17 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Auto Club 500 broadcasters[edit]

List of Auto Club 500 broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no less than 49 articles like this one; I believe they all fail WP:NOTDIR and/or WP:NOT#STATS. If the information is notable and encyclopedic it should be merged into the main article; however I don't believe this is a valid spinout and should be deleted. The remaining articles can be viewed by going to Template:NASCAR_on_television_and_radio - they are in sections 6-9. I have not mass-AfDd these; further action depends on the outcome here. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:10, 11 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Gray[edit]

Spencer Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs, not really notable looking about the net for sources. It's been the same since 2007. So that and the fact he's not that notable and the article is a stub. The little prose their isn't that well of. RAIN the ONE (Talk) 23:08, 11 August 2010 (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 Keep (non-admin closure) --Cybercobra (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Software archaeology[edit]

Software archaeology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Searching for books and papers that use this term show that it is most often used in the context of software applications being applied to archaeological data rather than the archaeology of software. I find no significant sources for the latter usage and such a minor technical phrase does not justify an encyclopaedia article (possibly a note in the Wiktionary definition or a merge to reverse engineering). Raising for discussion as not that obvious for a speedy or prod. Fæ (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as WP:CB. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC) Neutral. I acknowledge the article has been improved - but I no longer feel qualified to comment. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate spellings may be responsible for not finding the relevant literature on Google searching. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage of this proves it an actual term. [3] Dream Focus 09:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - happy to see a speedy keep on the basis of the recent citations added. Fæ (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2010 (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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glam Sam And His Combo[edit]

Glam Sam And His Combo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band that doesn't satisfy the notability requirements of WP:MUSIC. Only independent source cited is a brief mention in a blog. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:37, 11 August 2010 (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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Victor-Louis[edit]

Reginald Victor-Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP Dawnseeker2000 21:31, 11 August 2010 (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decolonization in Europe[edit]

Decolonization in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A pure collection of original research. This list mixes all eras and political regimes under inexplicable "decolonization" banner. Renata (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is a list, not an article, so it might help to rename it as such. The concept is both sound for an encyclopedia and useful as it now sits. I can see no rational reason to toss this. Carrite (talk)
  • delete - arbitrary concoction, WP:OR, like insinuations that the Belgian Revolution of 1830 liberated the Southern Provinces of the Dutch colonial power or that German Confederation was the colonial power of Liechtenstein, to name just a few problems. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This seems to be blatant OR, and possibly POV, for example, it refers to Russia and Norway as colonies of the Mongol Empire and Sweden, respectively. Also, this article is not sourced, the inline citations just lead to explanatory notes from the author. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because this is effectively a partial list of European countries by date of independence. This should be renamed and expanded, because as Miacek says, "decolonization" isn't appropriate here; however, this is a useful start to a comprehensive list. Note that a few countries are included here that don't fit the inclusion criteria at the top: for example, San Marino obviously didn't gain independence after World War I. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Colonization in Europe, which certainly is a well documented phenonemon, particularly during the Classical period up until the Middle ages and beyond. See this source. --Martin (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename - the list is intended as supplement of the Asia, Africa, Americas, Oceania. I agree that it can be improved - by clearly distinguishing between "decolonization" (Ottoman, Russian, Austria-Hungary, Cyprus, Malta, etc.) from other cases (Europe is the only continent with so many "other" cases - Americas/Oceania don't have any and Africa/Asia - only a few. That's why the article name is "in Europe" instead of "of Europe") and by altering the lead section accordingly. About the sources - all info is from the respective Wikipedia articles like "History of ...", just put in a single list. Alinor (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I implemented some of these changes, please see the revised version. Alinor (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know what to make of the page. It seems an artificial fusion of several different concepts: European countries formed at the end of WWI; Countries formed by the break-up of the Soviet Union; Origin of European states, etc., etc. Because of this, there are some seemingly arbitrary categorizations: Slovenia coming from the Ottoman empire rather than from Yugoslavia; the Baltics from the Soviet Union in the 1980s rather than from Russia in 1918, but Poland in 1918 rather than in 1945; Portugal from the Crown of Spain rather than the earlier independence from Castile/Leon; France from the Frankish Empire and not from the Angevin Empire; and what's with the United Kingdom dating from 750 years before it ever came into being (Athelstan did not rule Scotland and Northern Ireland). The list is all over the place, with no clear concept of what it is supposed to represent. It seems an attempt to force a page into the decolonialism framework seen on other continents that really doesn't apply to Europe. Agricolae (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. That's exactly why this article is incurably OR and should be deleted. The history of the Baltic states in the USSR (1940-1991) is best treated as the Soviet occupation of Baltic states, the secession of the Dutch Southern provinces is not treated as decolonization in scholarly sources, to name just a few inaccuracies. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belgian secession is already corrected in the new version as non-decolonization.
In the list are put the earliest entities that are continuously followed by independent governments up to the present day (eg. Kingdom of XXX -> Republic of XXX -> Second Kingdom of XXX) without interruption periods of foreign rule (excluding occupation during war - mostly in WWI and WWII). The USSR annexed the Baltics after WWII. Of course some countries could disagree and not recognize this (thus claiming that de-jure the Baltics are not part of the USSR), but I think that nobody objects that de-facto they were fully integrated into the Soviet state, just like the rest of its territory, under civilian administration, etc. - for 40-50 years.
Anyway, this and some of the crown-separation cases could be discussed/changed as needed. Alinor (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Baltic republics were fully integrated or not does not overshadow the core of the problem: this case is not treated as colonization by the majority of sources. Neither should we. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple definitions of colonization or Colonialism (make sure you check the article). However, what you're constructing here is a hopeless mish-mash, having broadened your concept of colonization to the extent that Kosovo's (or Abkhazia's!) gaining of independence will likely be treated by you (but not by sources) as 'decolonization'. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I use the term as described on the decolonization page. There the Soviet Union/Russian Empire is listed along with the other "classic" cases.
Kosovo/Abkhazia would be listed as non-decolonization secessions from Serbia/Georgia, and Serbia/Georgia as a whole have theirs dates/events.
The non-decolonization cases are included (but clearly marked as such; we can add a different color if needed) in order to have a complete timeline and to cover all current countries. The list does not claim that EVERY state is decolonized. Alinor (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is based on the principles of the decolonization article (as said in one of the notes - it is not a list of independence dates). The states formed without decolonization (like Denmark, UK, etc.) are marked as such (merged "colonize" columns). Occupations during war are not considered. Mergers/seccessions of already independent states too (like most of Yugoslavian republics). Subsequent acquisitions of additional territories are not considered (may be mentioned in a note). Of course there could be some discrepancies - please improve where applicable. Alinor (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say it is not a list of independence dates, and yet of the first 19 entries in the table 18 are non-decolonialism events - independence or foundation events, so the first part of it is just such a list. You say you don't consider mergers of already existing states, yet you do so with Castile and Aragon to form Spain, and you again do so with Portugal and Spain in order to report Portuguese separation from Spain rather than from Castile. You say subsequent acquisitions of additional territories are not considered. Does that mean Scotland is just 'an additional territory' of England? I doubt the Scots with their 800 years as an independent kingdom would agree. These cannot simply be fixed because the criteria are arbitrary. It cannot be simply renamed because it isn't a coherent list. Getting down to brass tacks, do you have a source representing scholarly consensus that calls the freedom of Poland decolonialism? Do you have a source that considers the freedom of Lithuania in 1990 of a kind with that of Slovenia in 1918, yet entirely distinct from that of Slovenia in 1991 or from Lithuania in 1918? If you have no such scholarly consensus, then it is WP:OR. 'Improving' the list based on our own opinions simply adds additional levels of OR and POV. Lacking a coherent source for such a list, I think I have to say Delete. Agricolae (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and of the 50 entries 21 are non-decolonization. And that is the reason for this debate - Americas/Oceania don't have such, Asia/Africa have only a few, but Europe has too many.
Yes, almost half of the entries don't apply to the list that lists them. Why does the list of decolonization list entries that are nothing of the sort. Given the inherent differences, even the so-called decolonization events mostly aren't. Just because there is a decolonization page for the other regions does not mean that there must be one for Europe or that one is appropriate, any more than we need a Medieval History of Africa page.
OK, if the opposition is so strong the list could be further colored differently, or even split in two parts, but the eventual split would break the timeline. Alinor (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Castile/Aragorn merger - this is not a decolonization event, so what do you mean? All of the "unification" events are a merger of sorts. The "crown unions" issue could defined more explicitly, yes. About the earlier cases of such 'merger/separation' there were wars fought over the issue, so we can't consider it similar to "two equal states take a joint decision".
Here we are debating characterizations of states that don't belong in a list of decolonization anyhow (although I challenge you to come up with rational criteria that distinguish the liberation of Greece from the Ottoman Empire (decolonization) from the liberation of Navarre from the Emirate of Cordoba (not decolonization, apparently).
Here we come to the decolonization-page content. I don't know what reasons/sources the editors there had, but I suppose that because liberations from the Ottoman empire were mostly in the 19th century, eg. Ottoman/Austria-Hungary/etc. 'special' empires are contemporary of British/French/etc. and they had servient territories. Anyway, the proper place for this discussion is the decolonization talk page, not here.
A possible solution to the "crown unions" splits/mergers (and similar gray areas in the non-decolonization entries) is to use multiple dates (denoting the different events/steps in the relationship) - like the "1922/1936/1953" for Egypt and the "1901/1942/1986" for Australia, etc. Alinor (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the base tracks - I just implemented the definition from the decolonization article. There Yugoslavia is not listed, Ottoman/Russia/Soviet/German/Austria-Hungary are listed - so, I put Slovenia in 1918 (Ottoman) and Lithuania in 1990 (Soviet). I think that this is non-OR/POV and as sourced/consensus/etc. - because it is used a long time already on the Decolonization page. I agree that post-WWI German/Austria-Hungary and post-Soviet newly independent states are borderline cases, but both empires and USSR are listed in the Decolonization page (lead) - so I think the list here is consistent with that (Poland, etc.). Alinor (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not accurate to say that just because you copied the format of other pages, that it is not OR or POV. Some of those other pages are POV. They combine into one list true decolonizing events, the release of a colony, with the carving off of regions from a crumbling coherent state by outside force, with nationistic movements resulting in independence. Britain considered Bermuda to be a colony, while they did not consider Ireland to be one, and the forms of rule were different. The Ottoman Empire considered Saudi Arabia to be part of a unified Ottoman state, just as Spain considers Galicia or Navarre to be a part of the nation. Indonesia did not consider East Timor to be a colony, any more than India considers Goa to be a colony. To lump these is POV. To lump them without published sources that do the same is OR. Likewise, to say that you 'just implemented the definition from the decolonization article' and applied it to Europe is the very definition of OR by synthesis. Do any scholars consider what the Austro-Hungarians did in Europe to be colonialism? What happened in these other regions was different in kind from what happened in Europe. As to other pages not using the breakup of Yugoslavia, of course they didn't as Yugoslavia controlled no territory outside of Europe. However, compare the histories of Slovenia and Lithuania and I don't see how a distinction can be drawn that would cause the two to be treated differently. Simply put, its all being made up as we go. It's OR. Agricolae (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If other pages are OR/POV, that should be discussed there. This list here is just a supplement to the decolonization page. Also I am not so sure that Saudi Arabia/etc. were "integral part". You can see here. Of course they didn't use the term "colony", but some other like "vassal"/"client"/etc. - but we have similar cases in British/French/etc. cases with "protectorate"/etc. And a mere label doesn't explain the situation in each case, there are different aspects in the relations, etc. - but the basic thing is that there were a separation from a foreign power (regional like Ottoman/Austria for european territories or remote as British/French/etc. for Africa/Americas/Asia). Yugoslavia is different from the USSR in that Yugoslavia was formed by decisions of three states, but the USSR was formed in succession to the Russian Empire/Republic during the Russian Civil War. So, the new states in the ~1920s, that emerged after the civil war are Poland, Finland, Baltics. Poland/Finland are independent since ~1920s (and Poland is also formed on German territory, not only Russian) - of course under different government types, in WWII occupations, etc. The Baltics were independent for ~20 years (1920s-1940s), but were eventually re-conquered by the USSR (Russian Empire successor - just as French monarchies/republics/empires/etc. succeeded each other), so their situation is similar to some colony rebelling against the "metropole" during its civil war, only to be retaken later (like the briefly independent states in the 1920s). I agree that this is a somewhat gray area, because ~20 years "peace" independence is clearly different from "independence" during civil war, but still the metropole eventually restored its power and hold it fully for over 40 years. Anyway, the discussion about 1918 or 1990 can be made on the talk page, but I don't agree that the whole list should be removed. Alinor (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. While certainly there was colonisation going on in Europe, for example in England by the Anglo-Saxons and Normans (who themselves where decendant from earlier Viking colonies in Normandy), de-colonisation was not common (Baltic Germans probably being the exception) because these settlers were eventually assimiliated into the indigenous culture, so there was nothing to de-colonise, i.e. Germanic speaking vikings became French speaking Normans became English speaking Englishmen. --Martin (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's why it is listed as non-decolonization, but maybe we should introduce colors in the list to make a clear distinction? Alinor (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added coloring, please see the new version. Alinor (talk) 11:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot of inherent difficult POV problems. List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty provides all the usable functionality without POV and OR problems Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could we stop creating novel scientific topics? An encyclopaedia is supposed to report existing knowledge, not to create original research for the sake of an overzealous consistency.Anonimu (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Except Cyprus and Malta, none of them were colonies in the normal sense. Gibraltar (not mentioned) remains a colony, because Spain claims it. The description of counties subject to a personal union (with a common monarch) or a legal union (with a common government) as colonies is a strange POV. What this article is seeking to achieve is done much better by List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty. That article is tagged for improvement and this article may provide some missing information. In it I note Portugal's dependence on Spain for 70-80 years up to 1640 is omitted and the unification of Aragon and Castile was preceded by a personal union from the 1490s. After merger, delete redirect, if possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this list is not to be looked alone, by itself - it is "appendix" to the Decolonization page. Just as Decolonization of Asia, Decolonization of Oceania, Decolonization of Africa, Decolonization of the Americas. It conforms to the definitions there - so I think any POV/OR disputes should be resolved for decolonization in principle, not in this list. So, I don't see any reason to delete the list - it can be changed (if the definitions on the Decolonization page are changed). Alinor (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As additional note - the List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty is different and could not "replace" this one - the dates are arranged by different principles. The list here is about the date of separation from a particular set of controlling powers (as described in the Decolonization article) - the "last" empires, these of 19th and 20th century. If the article name is so inappropriate I propose a Rename to Modern empires dissolution in Europe or similar. Alinor (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several comments. First, OR is OR. It doesn't matter if in performing the OR you have copied the process of OR used on other pages. If the analysis is yours and not that of a reliable source, it is still OR. Second, if the critical difference between your page and the existing sovereignty page is the order, then you have a real problem, as your page then, by your own admission, adds nothing but style and includes numerous events that have nothing whatsoever to do with colonialism. Finally, context is relevant. In other regions similar definitions produce a few inappropriate entires (e.g. Ethiopia) among long lists of true colonies. That can be fixed by editing the page. In the European context, it produces a 50-entry list that includes two or three actual former colonies, making the page a meaningless collection of mostly irrelevant or POV cases. Just because there is a decolonization list for other regions need not require such a page for Europe if it is irrelevant in a European context. You are right that other decolonization pages need work (who decided that every country, even those never colonized, must be listed?), but that doesn't negate the central problem with this page, that there are only two or three true decolonization events in modern European history, and you don't need a page with a 50-member list to show them. That is why this page cannot be repaired by simple tweaking, as perhaps can the others. "Because such a page exists for other regions" is a poor argument for a page, as is "I don't like the order of the other list". Agricolae (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About the OR - it should be explained (and maybe it is sourced) by the modifications of the Decolonization page. If we discuss it here and take decision based only on this reason - this is like having a page deleted/merged/whatever without having "AfD/Merge/Whatever-template" shown on it (or having it shown on some related page). Anyway, I am not making analysis, I just made a list with dates collected from the History of xxx articles.
Which is an analysis. I challenge you to point out the page that says Great Britain was founded in the reign of Athelstan. In compiling it, you are performing analysis in concluding which events count and which don't.
The difference between the sovereignty-list and this list is not in the order, but in the characterization event - here it is the date of separation from one of the late modern age empires.
And Great Britain separated from an Empire under Athelstan? The list is not what you claim it to be. It is a list of every country in Europe, whether they were a colony, separated from a modern empire, or never did.
The entries like Ethiopia/Nepal/etc. are added (but clearly distinguished) to show the context/perspective of the 'regular' entries. Deleting these would not be an improvement.
The pages are lists of decolonization events. It is unnecessary to list countries that were not colonies in such a list. They add no useful context.
The list currently has the following entries: 3 overseas (green), 26 neighboring (yellow, mostly Ottoman/Austria/Russia), 21 'non-decolonization' (gray). So it is not 50 entries for 3, but for 29, if we are going to be exact.
You overlooked the word 'true' in my description. You have two or three such events. It is POV that the expansion of contiguous states through conquest and merger is equivalent to colonialism. It is patently ridiculous to suggest that Hungary was a colony of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, any more than that Lithuania was a colony of the Polish-Lithuanian union. It is further POV that such events only constitute colonialism when they don't involve Yugoslavia. Thus you have 2 or 3 classic cases of colonialism, 26 cases of imperial fragmentation.
As I understand the biggest disagreement is that "neighboring separation" is implied in the list to be "decolonization". I agree that if accepted as such this will be a very borderline case of decolonization.
This is not the only problem. There are also 21 completely irrelevant members of the list. Why are they included in a list of decolonization? As much as you try to deny it, this is a list of foundation dates for European states, and we already have such a page. Agricolae (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I proposed to make a new list about the 'separation from one of the late modern age empires', with the appropriate notes/etc. - so that it is not implied that the 26 yellow separations are decolonization. Alinor (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for Modern empires loss of european territory
Lead: The Empires of the Modern Age have endured dissolution or separation of some of their territories in Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries. Such foreign controlling powers and the processes of separation from them include the breakup of the German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires (in 19th and 20th century, mostly after World War I); of the British (mostly after World War II); of the Russian Empire and its successor (mostly after the Cold War); and others.
Timeline legend: This is a list of all present sovereign states in Europe, sorted according to their date of separation from a Modern empire, if applicable; colors: separation from overseas foreign controlling power; separation from neighboring foreign controlling power; achieved independence in different way.
Alinor (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge contents into List of sovereign states in Europe by date of achieving sovereignty per convincing explanation of Alex Bakharev. The concept of colonization is very controversial: it's not convincing that European countries have been "colonized". --Sulmues (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename Move to Colonization in Europe and convert to prose without OR. I think a well sourced, neutral account of this should be included but not in the way it is currently done. Dr. Blofeld 09:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - terminology is completely weird and probably written from a US-centric point of view which assumes that everyone else must have been a colony and fought a (single major) war to become independent. That's a completely wrong picture of European history, and the terminology hardly applies. In the unlikely case somethings is salvageable for a different list, fine, but "decolonization" should be nowhere in it. Tomas e (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge as Sulmues and Tomas e have put it very well. TheGrappler (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Ms. Leather[edit]

International Ms. Leather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mediocre notability and definite advert tone – what's more, the article as it is might even be a G11 or G12-ish speedy (see: ...will be rehearsed and heavily coached by our Entertainment Producer... (emphasis added)). There may be a conflict of interest: the creator is an SPA named "User:Hobbitsmith" and the 2008 champion is one Hobbit Joost. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 03:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 20:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject doesn't seem to be notable, article is written in a promotional tone, and the only source is the event's website. A google search turned up nothing that could be considered an RS. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, little beyond the promotional.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2010 (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. The consensus is that Fandeyev does not meet the criteria for inclusion on the English Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Vladimirovich Fandeyev[edit]

Kirill Vladimirovich Fandeyev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1.The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. - No, he isn't.

2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. - No, he isn't.

3.The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. - No, he isn't.

4.The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. - No, he isn't. --Oldfox2003 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Already a significant body of work. No need to blow away this biography. Carrite (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Persona is a finalist in the All-Russian competition of the prestigious international festival and a member of the Composers' Union —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.254.43.62 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This composer's union is non-goverment organisation, and anybody, who have higher music education may become a member of this union. All-Russian competion is anonymous competition, anybody, even me and you may participate in it. There isn't any preselection. Moreover, only a finalist, first-seccond-third places were not conquered by him.--Oldfox2003 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there is no any mentioning of really prestigious and international festival--Oldfox2003 (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • User OldFox no significant contribution to the en.wikipedia, but he put on the removal of the article. Please consider the fact that the party does not have a particularly significant contribution to the encyclopedia. In addition, the user repeatedly violated the rules on ru.wikipedia many times and warned there administrators --Spanya (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Users Spanya & Kusiel are clones of user Spaniel and they all banned in ruwiki for trolling, violating the rules, copyright violation, threats of prosecution and many others deeds. You can see decision of checkuser here & here. This artical is written by himself and posted in different languages. Very likely that all this anonimous users are Spanya.--Oldfox2003 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Written as a user is not true. User kusiel - this is a completely different person. You can check this by placing accounts on test in Ukrainian wiki. Any verification to confirm that this different computers and even different cities. Written user OldFox is slander - Article on ruviki was not created by the composer. This can be seen in the history of changes.
User OldFox on Russian wiki disclosing confidential information to another user, but was not punished for no apparent reason. Note: Deleting article relates only to the user's personal hostility to the composer.
Repeated violation of the rights of users OldFox can be found here

Аs this user changes the reference to the breach, that it was impossible to verify them. So do not be surprised if by clicking on the disclosure of confidential information, you will be just on its talk page. Proof that the user is editing an encyclopedia without a trace, was obtained from him in private correspondence. --Spanya (talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As usual (so this user deed at ruwiki), Spanya/Spaniel/Kusiel/Kysa (they are/he is the author of the article in different language sections of WP. Yes, ten to one, person Kusiel exist IRL, but by ruwiki userchecker's approved that Spaniel/Spanya used his/her account in discussions and article's editing also) starts to flame, discussing users but not article, ignors decisions of checkusers, starts to blame without any base other users in attempt to save article about himself. I was not blocked after publishing his letter because it contained threats and user acknowledged this and agreed with it publication. He, as usual, baseless blames me (& other users) in different deeds (but "changes the reference" it's something new), and in such impossible thing, like traceless editing of wikipedia (!). He accused me in this action at ruwiki also, even after he was explained that it happend because he used "go back" in browser without updating the page...--Oldfox2003 (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are now passed to the person and left of the subject article. Allegations of identity accounts baseless. I have already wrote above. And once again emphasize that it can verify the administrator at the Ukrainian wiki with the relevant rights. This proves that the entrance to the account was from different cities. A user continues his accusations. I propose to put a warning for the transition to the individual. --Spanya (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said. I want to appologize for him, and the fact that He started unacceptably discussion.--Oldfox2003 (talk) 18:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - The composer is in the union composers. He participated in the considerable competition Petrov's name. I think, it is enough.--212.2.138.40 (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better evidence is produced. A fair sized body of work - but is it notable? Has it been performed or recorded - and if so where? The 'diploma' awarded in the St Petersburg конкурс (literally 'concours' but probably = competition) - what is the standing of this? Is there academic status giving notability? Being in a composers' union is not evidence of notability so far as I can see. Peridon (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boyzone Brother 2011 Tour[edit]

Boyzone Brother 2011 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced list of dates, not an article. Mister sparky (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Hopper[edit]

Jade Hopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable enough tennis player for a WP bio Mayumashu (talk) 02:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:18, 11 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Calamitous Intent[edit]

Guild of Calamitous Intent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional organization. The article consists entirely of in-universe original research. No real world context or notability established in the article. Ridernyc (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little, if at all, independent coverage.--PinkBull 21:11, 18 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dunjonquest (series)[edit]

Dunjonquest (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:GNG. A search on Google yields lots of fansites and such, but no reliable sources, and then a search on Highbeam Research yields zero results. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:59, 11 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode CMS[edit]

Episode CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can not find any signs of notability whatsoever. Haakon (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google query for "EpisodeCMS" has 3520 results
  • This CMS is very young but it is opensource and have big potential. This maybe the best CMS on CakePHP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RazbakovAleksey (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:N - the software may have potential, but until it receives significant independent coverage it is not notable. Wikipedia is not used for promotion of new software, rather for recording of already established software. Greenman (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the article was copied to EpisodeCMS (without the space) today, and the original article was made into a redirect. So a "manual move", losing the history. Outcome of this AfD should apply to both pages. Haakon (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait please for a month to approve that it is important stuff. I think developers can say that i'm right. Project is too young, it's true, but it has good potential. RazbakovAleksey (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, no reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2010 (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 deleted (G4) by JamesBWatson. Speedy deleted (G4) by JamesBWatson (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nadini Premadasa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nadini Premadasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entropy (band)[edit]

Entropy (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Criterion #9 requires competitions to be 'major'... The Annual Maine Reindeer Rock Off appears to be a High School battle of the bands. No other assertion of notability. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has a single source. Can then be recreated if a second source appears. Dew Kane (talk) 16:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing in the article to indicate true notability. The band hasn't even released an album yet.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to an oversight, this AFD was not listed in the log. It is listed now. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--manifestly fails notability guidelines for musical acts. Horologium (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG as a non-notable band. One win at a very regional band competition is not "major". Ealdgyth - Talk 14:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2010 (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 merge to Deval Patrick. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Patrick[edit]

Diane Patrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability; is spouse of sitting US governor. Fails first point of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria. Horologium (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge/redirect - To Deval Patrick. Thanks 20:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - First ladies are ceremonial public figures. Yes, they gain their position via marriage, only indirectly through election, but the fact remains that they are constantly in the public eye and almost certainly the object of independent media coverage if you look hard enough. They perform public functions, in many or most cases, and they are likely to be the object of WP searches by the general public, adding a rationale of functionality for their inclusion. So, keep as notable per se. Carrite (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This bio is getting around 30 hits a day this month, which indicates to me that people are indeed looking for such things on Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they're not finding anything here. There are four gubernatorial spouses who are redirects: Patsy Riley, Mariclare Culver, Supriya Jindal, and Nancy Schweitzer. There are 23 that are redlinked (plus three in the territories). This should be join one of the two groups. There is almost nothing available that doesn't discuss her in the context of her relationship to her husband, which is not sufficient to establish notability. In fact, the only references are a link to a Boston Globe article, one is a series of articles on the spouses of gubernatorial candidates, and a link to her bio on the Massachusetts state website. She is not Maria Shriver, an internationally recognized journalist, Marjorie Rendell, a federal judge, or Lori Easley, a Miss USA state representative; she's not even Andrea Conte, who might qualify for notability due to her 1988 kidnapping. Mrs. Patrick is simply a successful lawyer, which is insufficient to meet our notability requirements. Horologium (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Thigpen Perry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anita Thigpen Perry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability; spouse of a sitting US governor. Fails first point of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria. Horologium (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy I'll take this article under my wing and attempt to bring it up to a minimum level of quality as the article did previously have notibility qualifiers (medical institution, research, etc.) but were unsourced and got removed from the article. Hasteur (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First ladies are ceremonial public figures. Yes, they gain their position via marriage, only indirectly through election, but the fact remains that they are constantly in the public eye and almost certainly the object of independent media coverage if you look hard enough. They perform public functions, in many or most cases, and they are likely to be the object of WP searches by the general public, adding a rationale of functionality for their inclusion. So, keep as notable per se. Carrite (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This one-line stub is getting an average of around 50 hits a day this month, independent of the added AfD traffic. This indicates to me that the general public assumes that bios of sitting first ladies and gentlemen will be found on WP. Carrite (talk) 21:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And they're not finding anything here. There are four gubernatorial spouses who are redirects: Patsy Riley, Mariclare Culver, Supriya Jindal, and Nancy Schweitzer. There are 23 that are redlinked (plus three in the territories). This should be join one of the two groups. If Mrs. Perry is notable, there should be some coverage of her; this article is unreferenced and content-free. The fact that this article was kept at the first AFD for the potential to be sourced, and seven months later is still an unsourced sub-stub leads me to believe that the first AFD was incorrect. There is almost nothing available that doesn't discuss her in the context of her relationship to her husband, which is not sufficient to establish notability. She is not Maria Shriver, an internationally recognized journalist, Marjorie Rendell, a federal judge, or Lori Easley, a Miss USA state representative; she's not even Michelle Paige Paterson, who might qualify for notability due to the affairs to which she admitted when her husband became governor. Horologium (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rick Perry. The article survived deletion in January with statements like "This we can rescue", but-- I am not at all surprised-- it's still the same page that says in its entirety "Anita Thigpen Perry is the current First Lady of Texas, and the wife of Governor Rick Perry". This was created about five years ago by some IP address who apparently thought that there ought to be a stub article about every person who ever married a United States governor. If we had a policy of inherent notability for the the families of state government officials, a stub would survive without the inconveniences that come with giving a damn. But first ladies and first husbands are not have to show their notability just like anyone else. I have to agree with Horologium, there are probably 50 people every day who look at this and say "is this it?" Mandsford 12:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the history of the article? Previous versions did have more content. Hence my request earlier to userfy so that I can bring this up to a stand alone article. Hasteur (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did, before I tagged it. The extra content was a straight copy/paste from the state website, filled with promotional peacock words and totally uncited (which was deleted for copyvio). I'm not saying that there is no chance of making something good, but there is a dearth of reliable, independent sourcing to establish notability, and there isn't anything worth userfying here, as the article is 92 characters, and needs to be rewritten anyway to reflect dates. You can create a new version in your userspace without having the history of this article; the deleted text is available at http://www.governor.state.tx.us/about/firstlady. Horologium (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is an older, pre-alleged-copyvio version that has useful biographical information, as well already containing some of the right categories and formatting.[6] The upgrade effort should start there. Google News archives indicates a number of articles about her background and activities[7][8], notably her health advocacy activities that have been significant enough that they've named the nursing school at Texas Tech University after her.[9]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start to this process, adding content and some independent sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People expect to see articles for first ladies and Texas is the second largest state in terms of population and area, the naming of of the school of nursing in her honor at Texas Tech, and the amount of independent media coverage. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's got a major school of nursing named for her, for heavens sake - how much more WP:NOTABILITY do you want? --MelanieN (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lynch (pediatrician)[edit]

Susan Lynch (pediatrician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability; is the spouse of a sitting governor. Fails first point of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria. Horologium (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her husband's article; if I remember rightly, this is standard practice for non-notable spouses of notable people. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has quite a bit of coverage specifically about her and her activities; I added half a dozen Reliable Sources to the article. She appears to have achieved notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not inherited. But that does not mean the converse - that anyone related to a notable person who wouldn't otherwise be notable should be deleted - is true. Frequently we have these grey area cases where a person only becomes famous because of their spouse, but through that they start doing notable things and getting coverage in their own right. I think this is one of those cases where notability has become more than inherited.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there is no inherent notability for the spouse of an American governor, neither is there a bar against such a person having an article. Some spouses shun the public light, while there are others who see it as the opportunity to become the spokesperson, or even the champion, of a particular cause-- and, in doing so, become notable under WP:GNG. Dr. Lynch falls in that category. I would vote for getting rid of the red-white-and-blue template that goes with this article. Mandsford 13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is notable for being the national co-chairperson for the Hilliary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign and almost one-half of the spouses of sitting governors have articles here on Wikipedia (I understand this is not inherent, but there is a precedent established). Whoisjohngalt (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that too, since about half of the links in that template of governor's spouses at the bottom of the page were blue. But I was mistaken; quite a few of those bluelinks turn out to be redirects to the governor's page, not freestanding articles about the spouse. Only a dozen or so have their own articles. A spouse has to earn notability - as I think Susan Lynch has done. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2010 (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 John Hoeven. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey L. Hoeven[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mikey L. Hoeven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability; is the spouse of a sitting governor. Fails first point of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria. Horologium (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2010 (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 Jodi Rell. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Rell[edit]

Lou Rell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent notability; is the spouse of a sitting governor. Fails first point of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Invalid criteria. Horologium (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This much content can easily be included in Jodi Rell's article if we have to although I think it's not necessary. The governor's husband does not have independent notability. --Polaron | Talk 23:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to his wife's article; if I remember rightly, this is standard practice for non-notable spouses of notable people. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I would not object to the deletion or redirection of this article, I do have one question: Why does something such as the navbox {{Current U.S. First Spouses}} exist if articles on first spouses are generally considered inappropriate? About half of the states currently have articles for first spouses and, while some of these spouses are notable in their own right, many (like Lou Rell) are not particularly notable. Several have short biographical articles longer than Lou Rell's, yet are probably lacking anything substantial in the notability department. My opinion is that unless it is completely appropriate for all 50 first spouses to have their own articles, a navbox promoting the names of a multitude of non-notable people should probably be the next thing on the chopping block. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I had been looking at that navbox (which was what prompted my deletion attempts, whether through speedy deletion or AFD). There are a total of 23 articles on state First Ladies/First Gentleman (and four redirects). There are about ten that are of limited notability, and about that many that are clearly notable (mostly judges, but also notable beauty pageant winners and journalists). I wanted to see how the AFDs played out before addressing the template, but if most of the articles I target are redirected or deleted, then it might be appropriate to nuke the navbox. Horologium (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In answer to Sergeant Blue's question, anyone can create a navbox. In my first year here, I had assumed that it was a sign of approval for the creation and continued existence of articles of a particular genre, but there's a template that one can use to make these, and they can be edited just like anything else. It's not uncommon for people to set about to do a project like "Let's have an article for each of the first ladies and first husbands in the United States" and to have lots of blue and red links in a box, but there's no pre-approval required for a project, and, conversely, no guarantee of existence. Mandsford 13:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the governor's article. Lou Rell himself is not independently notable. IMO each of these "first spouses" has to be considered on a case-by-case basis - not all included or all deleted, but the evidence considered as to whether they are or are not notable. As far as the navbox, I think it is harmless and a useful tool - even though many of the people listed are redlinks or redirects. I would say to keep it regardless of the outcome of these discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polyglycoplex[edit]

Polyglycoplex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's a non-notable commercial product, and the article can will never be anything other than spam. It's been (supposedly) tested, it's been reviewed, but is it used anywhere? No. The only purpose of this article is to push the product. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Richards[edit]

Craig Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This guy is a non-notable club DJ. Per WP:MUSIC, I cannot find any criteria that he meets. Tavix |  Talk  19:08, 11 August 2010 (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 into McCafé article. Non-admin closure (closed by nominator). Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mocha frappe (McCafe product)[edit]

Mocha frappe (McCafe product) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible advertising. Need some help, maybe cleaning up is necessary. Some insufficient data, no notability asserted. McDonald's product, but we need to verify notability. Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:44, 11 August 2010 (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. If anyone wants this, just ask me or make a request at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1st century (Hebrew)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AfDs for this article:
AfDs for this article:
1st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article contains little to no content, in order of "intro"—"Events"—"Births"—"Deaths" with no references or sources whatsoever. Merge proposal has not been acted upon for almost a year. Therefore I would like to request deletion and userfication of all content into the specified article: i.e. User:SomeUser/1st millennium (Hebrew).

For these reasons, I would also like to nominate

1st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
6th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
7th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
8th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
9th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
10th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
11th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
12th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
13th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
14th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
15th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
16th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
17th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
18th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
19th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
20th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
21st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
22nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
23rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
24th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
25th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
26th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
27th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
28th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
29th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
30th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
31st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
32nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
33rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
34th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
35th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
36th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
38th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
39th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
41st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
42nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
43rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
44th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
45th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
46th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
47th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
48th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
49th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
50th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
51st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
52nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
53rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
54th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
55th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
56th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
57th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
58th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
59th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
60th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - Moves out into the future. A vast number of content forks waiting to happen. Appropriate content for Hebrew Wikipedia, perhaps, but not the English. Carrite (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Valid article topics, but there's no content. No complaints about recreation with actual encyclopedic content. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I would point out that we're in the middle of 58th century (Hebrew), and there's very little written even in that article, let alone other articles that do nothing more than show the beginning and ending date on the Gregorian calendar of a particular century. We've had some very good articles, such as 14th century AH, that show events within the context of a non-Christian calendar, and 19th century, which gives some information on notable occurrences during a 100 year period on the Christian or Common Era calendar. I'd argue in favor of keeping the 58th century article, given that the years since 1940 CE have been the birth of the State of Israel (and of the Chosen People developing nuclear weapons), and since someone could write a very good article. Most of these serve no other purpose except as placeholders for pages that will never be looked at. Mandsford 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I didn't understand you, could you clarify your position? At one point, you seem to be in favor of deleting 58th century (Hebrew) when you imply "even in that article, let alone..." but at another point you also seem to be in favor of keeping it when you explicity stated that "[you]'d argue in favor of keeping the 58th century article, given that..." :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I'll try to clarify it this way-- in their current state, I see no reason for any of these pages to be kept. If someone were to take an interest in improving any one of these articles (so far, no sign that that's going to happen), then in that case, I would say, hold off on erasing that particular page. Finally, if someone were going to try to improve a particular page, then 58th Century would be the logical candidate for improvement, since this is the 58th century now on the Hebrew Calendar. From my point of view, "keep" and "delete" aren't absolutes, and I'm not averse to changing my stance depending on subsequent developments. Sometimes, I'm persuaded by others that something shouldn't be kept; sometimes, an article gets a substantial rewrite and it's different than what was nominated and a delete turns to a keep. If someone wants to improve one of these articles, I'm not going to block that. On the other hand, if we get a bunch of responses to the effect of "Someone... not I... will fix this" then I don't want to encourage more complacency. Mandsford 13:04, 14 August 2010 (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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Iselin[edit]

Eleanor Iselin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article that does not introduce any new biographical info/character analysis not already contained within The Manchurian Candidate, The Manchurian Candidate (1962 film) or The Manchurian Candidate (2004 film). Article has been tagged unreferenced for over 1 year and notability tagged since March 2010. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2010 (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 U2. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flowering Rose of Glastonbury[edit]

Flowering Rose of Glastonbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The song has not achieved sufficient notability to warrant an article. It may be by a notable artist, but the song has been performed only twice and does not have studio recording or official release. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to U2. Mo ainm~Talk 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - could not find any information on the song outside of message boards. May one day be notable, but it currently hardly warrants an article. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2010 (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 Wisbech East railway station. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisbech railway station (Upwell Tramway)[edit]

Wisbech railway station (Upwell Tramway) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources I can find suggest that the Upwell line started in a bay platform at Wisbech East and this station has never existed. Britmax (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. The "station" is in fact a bay platform at Wisbech East. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wisbech East. Mjroots (talk) 10:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect as others have said. Do tramways have stations in the railway sense, rather than things more like a bus stop? I am sure we do not allow articles on bus stops. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule we don't, but this tramway was more like a branch of the railway built alongside a road than, say, the urban bus-on-rails you may be thinking about. Britmax (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Hook[edit]

Julian Hook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. Not notable. Of the references listed, #1 lists subject on a subpage as the review editor, #2-6 do not mention the subject at all, #7 mentions receiving a fellowship on a subpage. Using "Julian Hook" and "music" there are only 4 GNews hits (1 article by subject, 1 behind a paywall, and 2 on student achievements). Some GScholar hits, about normal for a university professor, but appearing to fall short of WP:PROF (and fails the 9 listed criteria there as well). GregJackP Boomer! 16:48, 11 August 2010 (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 deleted (G4, recreation) by Malik Shabazz. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pilot[edit]

Mike Pilot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a barely notable, internet-only broadcaster. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Pilat_(Pilot), which I'm 99% sure is about the same guy was deleted last October. No references, full of unencyclopedic trivia and has had some attempted edits by someone claiming to be the subject - see User_talk:Thamike and User_talk:Drmies#Mike_Pilot. The-Pope (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2010 (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. A clear consensus to delete. There are also calls for SALTing, which I will also do -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul LaViolette[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Paul LaViolette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was deleted at its 2nd AfD The subject was unhappy about the article and had emailed an editor requesting deletion. I don't think that this article offers any more evidence of notability than the last, probably less. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In fact, should the most recent creator of this article, or others, really wish to make the article the best it could be facing this discussion, they should request to gain access to the deleted versions of the article to see what references can be copied from there into the current version of it. __meco (talk) 14:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete presumably the situation hasn't changed since the previous AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons in the previous AfD, and because this is an inadequately sourced WP:BLP. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt per conclusive arguments from earlier AfDs. To summarize: His books are not widely held, nor is there significant, reliable coverage. In fact, coverage was vastly overstated. There was "George Noory's biography of LaViolette...", but this turned out to be nothing more than a few sentences of PR fluff on a radio show web page. There was also material from the subject's own Starburst Foundation (not independent). Then there was the "article" in New Scientist, which turned out to be just a trivial mention. The best that could be mustered was an article in a local alternative newspaper, the Washington City Paper. The "headlines in newspapers and magazines around the world" that were promised numerous times in those debates never materialized and still have not, as is obvious from the article's references. The account that re-created this article is clearly a WP:SPA and it's likely that this article would be re-re-created if this discussion ends in a "delete". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment I hope people understand my reasons "removing PROD; in all fairness the AfD was almost a year ago, and not a clear-cut case, so with all due respect, I think if this is to be deleted, it deserves a discussion; no problem if you wish to take it to AfD."[10], and I am sorry if I have caused unnecessary debate; perhaps I AGF too much, but I'd rather err on the side of caution, I suppose. I thought it'd have a fair chance of WP:PROF / WP:GNG given Google News, scholar - so hopefully my rationale for de-prod wasn't too insane.  Chzz  ►  21:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedurally speaking, I think you did exactly the right thing. I think the comments thus far reflect the fact that folks have indeed re-assessed at this article, such as it now stands, and have still come to the same conclusion. This is perhaps best reflected by the nom. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Notability has not improved since last time. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Well, that’s Wikipedia – you can find any useless information you can imagine (did you know the shocking fact that on August 1, 2005, Palmeiro was suspended for ten days for violating Major League policy:-) but when comes to science, let us suppress all new ideas even if people are well known, published scientists.

Anyway, I still think that the article should stay. For example, a number of Paul La Violette’s cosmology theories has been confirmed but unfortunately, not acknowledged. E.g. in 1985 and later 1994, he not only predicted blueshifting of signal between two distant spacecraft, but even discussed it with the NASA. This has been confirmed years later and today known as Pioneer effect - Wikipedia still describes it as unexplained “anomaly” :-) I agree that more works should be done on the article – if it survives. Also, my account is not one time; I’ve been member for years, and I have no connection with Paul LaViolette… Radova (talk) 18:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Radova (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do you have a source regarding that prediction? -- Radagast3 (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon the question Radova, but would you mind clarifying why you're editing from what appears to be a single-purpose account for the LaViolette article if you've "been member for years"? I ask because seasoned editors do not typically edit from newly-created WP:SPAs. Thanks in advance for the clarification. Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment There are many non-reliable sources on the internet repeating the claims re. this person and their early discoveries relating to the Pioneer effect, Blue shift, subquantum kinetics, etc. However, this all appears to stem from his own work - The Starburst Foundation, of which he is president[11] and claims that JPL should have acknowledged his work. The following quotations are from the website "etheric.com" which is registered to LaViolette - with bold emphasis by me;
  • Paul LaViolette's Pioneer Effect prediction remained unrecognized in the journal literature, but his attempts to bring this prediction to the attention of the scientific community through archive posting have been met with a closed door. Nevertheless, his paper has now been accepted for journal publication and is due to come out shortly. It is disconcerting that the archive administrators would allow other physicists to post their papers prior to journal publication and at the same time block LaViolette's repeated attempts to post his paper.[12]
I cannot find any reliable sources that support these claims. Chzz  ►  03:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (barring any more convincing evidence, to give some credence to notability, in which case I will revisit this discussion) From the above, I conclude, that this subject does not meet our notability guidelines, as I unable to find sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Considering the apparent efforts to promote the notability on non-reliable websites, and the consequent efforts to validate it on Wikipedia, I do recommend that if we can agree this matter, we should also salt the page. I'd also like to apologize to everyone here for taking time by removing the PROD.  Chzz  ►  03:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, it seems that I do not understand wikipedia policies. You wish to remove published scientist with plausible theory and for example, keep page dedicated to "Researcher" and "Inventor" (exact words on his page) John Searl. No publications (the guy is primary school dropout), no verification, no witnesses, no reliable sources: even his own children says that his "free-energy-anti-gravity" devices never existed. The newest documentary also shows nothing but claims. I understand that he is known for "being known" in conspiracy and new-age circles, but still... Then, there is a pages about "physicist" Bob Lazar with link to a journalist George Knapp known simply because he once reported about Bob's area 51 adventures :-) ... In brief, I believe that Dr. Paul LaViolette should have his page.

Radova (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The policies are indeed quite complex. Relevant policies include WP:GNG, WP:Verifiability, and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Radova's whole argument seems to be nothing more than WP:WAX. We're not debating whether all those other folks should have articles, we're only discussing LaViolette's case here. (If you don't think those other articles belong, then please prod or bring them to AfD.) I think the deal-breaker in this case has once again been demonstrated: there are no reliable, substantive, independent sources for any of the claims from/about this individual. There is only hearsay and testimonial. People, including myself, have been asking proponents to produce the claimed sources for a whole year. At this point, I think we can all safely assume that these sources simply do not exist. As near as I can tell, the only demonstrable facts are that LaViolette does indeed have a scientific background, has published some papers (listed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette), but that there has been little uptake or notice of this work (h-index of 5). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment One day, if his theories are proven right it will be fun to remember he didn’t pass the Wikipedia Pokemon test :-)

Radova (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really; it just means that, when this makes big news, we will write an article. Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia; it gathers information about any and all subjects that have already been extensively covered elsewhere. That's what an Encyclopaedia does. We do not do any form of 'discovery', we are not pioneers, we do no original research. There are plenty of other websites which do.  Chzz  ►  00:17, 16 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Limbert[edit]

Sean Limbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail the WP:ARTIST criteria. By definition all professional photographers have their photographs published, so finding his work in various publications is tangential. Similarly having profiles available (the one I checked seemed a self-written profile) is not the same thing as demonstrating significant impact or impact on the long term historic record. Searching Google News shows nothing more significant. As the article's history dates back to 2007, there seems little prospect of this improving in the near future. Fæ (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When you're a photographer and Google Images returns one result of a guy with a different name, you're not notable, I have to assume. --YixilTesiphon TalkContribs 13:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ARTIST, though I disagree with the nominator on the point that "by definition all professional photographers have their photographs published", which tends not to be true for portrait photographers and such. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point, perhaps I should have said notable rather than professional though there are probably exceptions to that too. Fæ (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2010 (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. The consensus is that notwithstanding the fact that Gardiner was well-respected individual, he does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gardiner (Swimming Coach)[edit]

Jim Gardiner (Swimming Coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While laudable, Mr Gardiner does not seem especially notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I feel like the National Library of Australia entry might be an assertion of notability. 2 says you, says two 13:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources, plus the awards he won, make him notable. The article would be more interesting if he had been involved in controversy and scandal, rather than being such a nice person. ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't understand: a recipient of the British Empire Medal is "not especially notable"? He belongs in Category:Recipients of the British Empire Medal but can't have his own article? It's a tough crowd here.... SteveStrummer (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The NLA reference is not about him, it's about the pool. As far as I can see, a passing mention by the Ipswich Advertiser is hardly enough to qualify for the general notability guideline. As for the BEM: if all the 3,446 people who received the civil medal and 1,106 people who received the military medal in Australia are notable I'd be very surprised. These kinds of awards are sometimes given to active people in local communities who, while making excellent contributions to their communities, are not at all notable for our purposes. Gardiner, it would seem, is one of those. Frickeg (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Frickeg and concur with his point about the BEM. After the abolition of Imperial honours, the BEM was replaced by the Order of Australia Medal (OAM). I know around half a dozen people personally and one one of them would come close to meeting WP:GNG. The BEM and the OAM are mostly used to recognise dedicated community service in local communities or for a specific worthy cause. While the awardees are very worthy people, it is the bottom rung in the Australian awards system. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The bottom rung"?? The Order of Australia Medal is quite the opposite: "In the Australian honours system appointments to the Order of Australia confer the highest recognition for outstanding achievement and service." Notability is a both a prerequisite and a consequence of its award. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bottom rung. Awardees of the Order of Australia Medal are not appointed to the Order of Australia. The hierarchy goes as follows
  • Companion of the Order of Australia (AC)
  • Officer of the Order of Australia (AO)
  • Member of the Order of Australia (AM); and finally
  • Order of Australia Medal (OAM).
At least 200 or so OAMs are awarded each year and most are given for things such as "30 years of voluntary service with the local Lions Club" and the like. I am not saying it is not a worthy award but by itself, it does not make someone notable. Perhaps a read of Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 36#OAMs for notability may provide you with some more insight into the Australian civilian and military awards system. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:38, 12 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eight queens puzzle solutions[edit]

Eight queens puzzle solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A collection of code snippets in various programming languages apparently concocted by an editor, violating WP:NOTHOWTO and possibly WP:V. Prod was removed with an edit note of this is a classic computer science issue regarding algorithms (not just code dumps), although that needs clarifying in article. However, the actual "issue" is discussed in Eight queens puzzle, and the code snippets were farmed out because of size (ignoring their unencyclopedic nature). Compare also WP:Village pump (policy)#policy on computer code. --Latebird (talk) 11:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. In case the VP thread referred to above is archived while this AfD is running, here's a permalink to its current content. Deor (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems like a case of "WP is not a how-to guide." There is already an article on the puzzle itself, the information maybe could be added there if it's not already. Or else an external link to the source for this article could be added. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge back into Eight queens puzzle, keeping only code that (1) illustrates the different algorithmic approaches, and (2) can be sourced. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the code is worth keeping. The main article talks about the algorithms which is the interesting bit and the bit people can find citations for. The code is just random what the cat dragged in and unlikely to be particularly interesting even if somehow a cite is found. Dmcq (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge as per Radagast3.Autarch (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the unsourced code has been removed. A sourced code has been added, but it is in an obscure language that is not understandable by someone not versed in the language. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 02:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and Bubba73. The ideas for how a solution may be constructed is already in the main article on the Eight queens problem; code/pseudocode crosses the line into instruction manual territory. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the main article is already well developed with information about algorithmic solutions. I see no advantage or improvement that would be achieved by merging any of this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2010 (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. The consensus is to delete as the case of Reynolds' notability has not been proven through the supplied sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RD Reynolds[edit]

AfDs for this article:
RD Reynolds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable

Well, as anyone who's seen my recent edits will attest to, I am unsure of the correct way to edit this. However, this article would not seem to to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The links are either his own website, or sites closely tied to him. There was a previous discussion about this, with the result being "NO CONSENSUS" (I was no part of that). From what I can gather(and this may come across as POV), the people who voted "Delete" did so with reasons, citing other examples, whereas the people who voted "Keep" did so purely out of personal pleasure gotten from reading Mr Reynolds' works, or because "he's notable in the Internet Wrestling Community. Yet the IWC article itself was deleted for non-notability. And other prominent(I would say more so) IWC figures such as "Scott Keith" have had THEIR articles deleted for non-notability. I am unsure if I have even loaded this nomination properly, but if anyone is able to help, will alert the Project Wrestling Page, as well as regular editors of the article in question(excluding the vandals of course). Spoke shook (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or merge with WrestleCrap, although that in itself is very poorly sourced. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per all the points I made in previous noms. --Endlessdan (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - relevant content to WrestleCrap. Nikki♥311 03:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - most of the reasons listed for not keeping this article are mentioned in what not to bring up as a reason for deleting something. Especially stating that someone "more notable" had an article deleted. Me stating that is probably against whatever rules there are anyway. The article itself can be expanded but multiple instances of vandalism pretty much ensured that it would never get finished anyway. DX927 (talk) 06:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does he meet WP:GNG? Nikki♥311 16:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • By receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. DX927 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Such as? Spoke shook (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of the 6 References, 1 is The WrestleCrap site, 1 a blog, 1 a dead link, 2 links to ECW Press, and 1 a link to Fighting Spirit Magazine. While a case for notability could possibly be made for the last 3, none are "independent of the subject". In fact, since most companies have websites that list people working for(/with) them, even these 3 are not exactly notable either. Your local 7-11 probably has a website stating who the Store Manager is, but does that mean he should have a Wikipedia page? Spoke shook (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You sure seem to have a vendetta against this guy. Way to have a neutral point of view. DX927 (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am actually a fan of Wrestlecrap. However, I honestly don't believe that RD is notable enough for his own Wikipedia article. I would actually like him to have his own article, but Wikipedia precedent(removing articles on Scott Keith, Vince Verhei, Internet Wrestling Community etc, as well as articles of actual active pro wrestlers) would make him less than notable. Especially since there is still a Wrestlecrap article. Is there any good reason for there to be TWO articles, one on Wrestlecrap, and one on RD? Especially since the Wrestlecrap article contains all the information about the site, radio show, gooker, and books? The mention of the references was simply to state that Wikipedia requires reliable third-party sources. This article has been here for a long time, with only self-referential links, and a link to his MySpace page! Spoke shook (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • There it is in a nutshell. An article you created was deleted so now you're "following precedent." The fact that you contacted everyone who voted to delete the article last time is dubious as well. Several people who said it should be kept weren't left messages from you, in fact it's amazing you said anything to me at all. The whole process of this particular nomination is highly suspicious. And you're STILL listing reasons that are not supposed to be talked about. The fact that x, y, z pages were deleted or don't exist is not a reason for deletion. Furthermore, for a page about someone not notable, it sure gets enough traffic from vandals and people wanting to constantly delete it and the Wrestlecrap page for "not being notable." But it's pointless, you're set in your opinion. This whole process is pointless because no one actually follows guidelines set by Wikipedia. Not only that but pretty much any reason to keep OR delete something is considered to be an "incorrect" reason. So I'm not even going to continue with this. Everyone on this site is delete happy. "I've never heard of it, so it should go." I've seen it 1000 times with articles completely unrelated to this one. Someone in here, not you, is basically using that as his reason for saying delete. I won't be responding, so don't bother saying anything. DX927 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You are making this personal. Why? I have never created a Wikipedia article. An article that i made some edits to was deleted. But how is that relevant to this discussion? And if you were to check my edit history, you would see that I left messages on the discussion pages of everyone who voted "Keep" AND "delete from previous discussions". Your accusations are uncalled for, and totally inaccurate. And the purpose of this nomination was not because "I've never heard of it". It is RD Reynolds is an obscure IWC character, that even most viewers of RAW will never have heard of, let alone it being notable enough for a respected general encyclopedia. This, along with the RD Reynolds page not having any reliable sources or links, as well as the reasons stated by others here and elsewhere, makes nomination likely. Having read the previous discussion, I am shocked that the decision was "No Consensus", rather than delete. One would think that that nomination would have been reason for people to link to reliable third-party sources. However since no such links/sources exist, they have not. Hence the nomination. You wish to make it personal, but it is clearly not. Spoke shook (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is no reason that anyone is going to be searching wikipedia for this person. The items for him/wrestlecrap is all promotion which in itself is one thing but the promotion uses alot of talk that only wrestlecrap fans would recognize.Woods01 (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- this is obviously an attention seeking article on a non-notable guy. It's amazing it's still here at all.JJJ999 (talk) 05:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RD is a really funny and cool guy, but, being honest, he's not really significant enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article. Dr Rgne (talk) 09:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails notability guidelines.--WillC 04:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously a notable figure. He has published books, he runs a popular website, and he meets WP:ATHLETE because he has competed at the fully professional level of his sport. I have very infrequent internet access at this point and will not be able to access Wikipedia again during this discusion, but when the article is kept, I will work on expanding it to demonstrate notability further (note that I have made good on such promises in the past, including Juggernaut (wrestler) and Sarah Stock, both of which I took from AfD to GA status). There was absolutely no need for yet another deletion discussion on this article, and the nominator's reasons are completely in opposition to the list of Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In a case of meeting WP:ATHLETE vs. WP:WAX, the choice is obvious, and the "Delete" voters haven't given any concrete reasons to demonstrate otherwise. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a few minutes, so I added some sources. One is from SLAM! Wrestling and gives a good amount of information on Baer/Reynolds the wrestler/manager (thus meeting WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE), and one helps demonstrate his status as an expert on wrestling gimmicks and further establishes his notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The one (which may or not be considered reliable, you'll have to ask someone else) link barely mentions him in passing, and doesn't really say much besides his being involved in Wrestlecrap. While SlamWrestling has been cited as reliable before, certain other Wikipedia articles which used SlamWrestling as their links/sources have been deleted for NOT having reliable links/sources. Yes yes yes this is getting into WP:WAX, but Wikipedia needs to have common rules, what's not good enough to save other wrestling-related articles should not be good enough to save this one just because you may be a fan of the guy. Spoke shook (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, being notable in professional wrestling(or more specifically in this case amongst a niche group of Internet Wrestling Community people) does not automatically make that person notable for Wikipedia. This is not the Pro Wrestling Wikia. Likewise, having had a book(or books plural) published does not automatically guarantee you being considered notable by Wikipedia guidelines. Spoke shook (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Having come back and re-read these "reliable sources", I can state unambiguously that there is NO mention whatsoever of RD Reynolds having"competed at the fully professional level of his sport". The only "notable" thing is that he is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers". If that alone is good enough to keep the article, then by all means, however, I personally feel that is in no way good enough to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The user GaryColemanFan has also resorted to attempting to keep the article by stating that he has "very infrequent internet access at this point", but "when the article is kept" he "will work on expanding it". Well, two things spring to mind...1)that this is just a stalling ploy to keep the article from deletion(as per the reasons stated throughout this page) and 2)a quick check through the article's edit history sees GaryColemanFan as the perhaps the article's most frequent editor. Likewise he has had an extensive editing history on Wikipedia in general, yet has never seen fit to "work on expanding" it. Does this article need further expansion with unreliable "verifications"(which are NOT mentioned at all in the references/links!), or no links at all? So, 2 "reliable" sources(from the same wrestling-only fansite) which state only that a) he has had two wrestling-related books published, and b)he is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers". I'm sorry, but I(and I'm quite sure nearly everyone else) believe that to still be non-notable. Spoke shook (talk) 07:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, trying to act like a bully doesn't make up for your lack of policy or guideline-based comments. The sources establish that he (1) competed as a professional wrestler and participated in many aspects of the business, which is sufficient to meet WP:ATHLETE and (2) is considered notable as a person, aside from his website, for his careers in wrestling and writing (both books and as a regular contributor to a major magazine). Your comment about a "wrestling-only fansite" is absurd, since SLAM! Wrestling is part of Canadian Online Explorer and is edited by Greg Oliver, who is a huge name in the wrestling journalism business. As for my internet access, you might want to revisit WP:AGF. My laptop battery is dead, so I have infrequent access to the internet (since you were obviously digging through my past contributions, you may have noticed that I regularly contribute to Wikipedia every day and then suddenly stopped for 5 days). I do not have the time to do major edits to the article on relatives' computers. As for my edits on this page, they have been largely fighting vandalism. Why does that matter? I have no idea. No, I haven't done a lot of work on this page. If you want to see where my time has been spent, check out my user page. Again, though, why does this matter? WP:HEY says to give the article a chance (this is also backed up by WP:NOTIMELIMIT). The article has potential, reliable sources that establish the subject's notability (independent of his website, thus making a merger of pages a bad option), and I have offered to work on it. Rather than claiming that I am using a stalling ploy, take a look at what has happened when I have made the same offer in the past: Sarah Stock, Juggernaut (wrestler), Kafu, just to name a few off the top of my head. I do not need further comments from you, so please start your own comment if you feel the need to continue your attempts at bullying. The facts remains: the article meets the notability guideline, and the closing administrator should put much more weight on that than a few "delete" votes that cite neither policy nor guidelines and your WAX arguments and attempts to mischaracterize the discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nobody is "trying to act like a bully". A lot of people have noted that this article has no reliable sources, and that the subject(RD Reynolds) is non-notable, even amongst wrestling fans. I realize this may be irrelevant to this discussion but even most wrestling "smarks" have most likely never even heard of the guy! Again, even if you check RD's own website, there is no mention of him having competed as a professional wrestler, so now you are making claims, and adding(non-reliable) links that do not state the claim that you make they do. Yes, your links note that he has written obscure wrestling-related books, but is that really notable enough for a Wikipedia article? I would think not. I can see that you have not had as much internet access as you have in the past, but you have certainly had sufficient access prior to that to "work on expanding" the article. And the article does not need to be expanded. What it does desperately need is Reliable Sources which state more than he is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers" an accolade that does not meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. Your other claims are quite frankly ridiculous, as even RD Reynolds himself has never claimed to be an active professional wrestler. And even if he had(which he hasn't) there is a major difference between being a John Cena or Hulk Hogan (or even a Steve Doll), and working one or two indie shows twenty years ago(which he never even did!). Irrelevant to this article and discussion, but I also find your tone offensive(statements, like "done with you, do not reply to me"(because you know you argument is hollow?), "acting like a bully"). Likewise, simply making bold statements such as "obviously a notable figure", "when the article is kept" and "competed as a professional wrestler" do not make them so. There are no reliable sources, even the sources used(mainly his own site) make no mention of him having ever worked as a professional wrestler(not that that alone is notable), and the only "notable" statement is that he is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers"(which is also OR, did that site monitor hits on all the various wrestling-related websites?) There is no reason to believe this article will ever be improved, as its two main flaws... 1)The subject's lack of notability and 2)Lack of Reliable sources stating the subject's notability, will never be "corrected". Spoke shook (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this is too longwinded here is a Summary:
    • I (as well as many other editors) noted the lack of reliable sources, coupled with the subject's lack of notability for this article. I then nominated it for deletion. The tag was removed by an IP vandal, who arrogantly swore at me, and was then banned, and the tag replaced. Six other editors voted for "Delete", also citing the lack of notability and/or lack of reliable sources. Another editor voted to "Merge" the relevant information(such as exists) into the Wrestlecrap article. One editor voted "Keep", citing the article's previously being vandalized as reason for the lack of reliable sources. When asked to provide sources for the article's notability, he replied that those who voted "Delete" "sure seem to have a vendetta against the guy" and then stated "I'm not even going to continue with this" and abandoned his argument. A second editor also voted "Keep" because the subject is "Obviously a notable figure". When asked how this is so, he made claims without providing sources to back up those claims. He also resorted to personal attacks (claiming that I was "Acting like a bully"), and again seems to be "done with you, do not reply to me). He did state that he may "work on expanding" the article at some indeterminate point in the future. He also provided new links(which may or may not be reliable, I'll have to leave that to someone with more authority). reading through the links one gets only two points made, which are...

1)The subject has CO-authored two (obscure) books, both of which have the word Wrestlecrap in the title(and both of which are mentioned in greater detail in the Wrestlecrap article)

2)The subject is "one of the internet's biggest wrestling writers". Is that alone notable? Can that actually be verified? And isn't that also mentioned on.....the Wrestlecrap article?

There is absolutely no reason for this article to exist. Spoke shook (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore[edit]

Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per Wikipedia:Notability_(books). The book was published in 1999, was with one or two exceptions not reviewed, has never been the subject of reliable third party coverage, and is now out of print. See WP:Articles for deletion/Michael Lederer (result: delete) for some additional discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following play. It is by the same author and similarly fails to meet notability criteria. It has never been performed or reviewed, and has never been the subject of reliable third party coverage. It was publicly rehearsed once earlier this year in London and is scheduled to premiere in New York in September 2010. While it may one day achieve notability, as of now it has not. JohnInDC (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mundo Overloadus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete It would appear that neither ever made the news, according to a google news search. I would have expected a few hits at minimum. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (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. The fact that this article remains unsourced, that there is no independent, reliable verification of the information included (despite the author's excellent attempt at finding sources), leads to the conclusion that in this case the consensus is to delete. I should add, incidently, that the wording of the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true" -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frosty, Heidi & Frank[edit]

Frosty, Heidi & Frank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged as having no sources for more than two years; recent BLP problems - article causes more trouble than it is worth - likely self-promotional? Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete m:eventualism just doesn't work with BLP-related articles, and two years is enough to demonstrate it probably won't be fixed, and if fixed will almost certainly not be maintained. Wikipedia has to start admitting its framework can't handle and adequately maintain certain things without undue and unfair risk to the subject.--Scott Mac 12:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has been more than two years. Frosty Stilwell, Frank Kramer, and Heidi Hamilton were created in August 2005.

      The real problem here is the usual one with talk radio programme hosts: People listen to the shows and think that everything said on air is a biographical/historical fact, and blithely and without discrimination add it to Wikipedia. Of course, the fact that these things are said on air somewhat undermines the risk-to-the-subject argument. The more important consideration is the endemic lack of any attempt at all on the parts of some editors to make content verifiable, as, sadly, exemplified by these edits by a de-prodder. Where's the source for all of that analysis and personal opinion, for example? Who knows. Proper Noun (talk · contribs) doesn't tell us. That is the problem. Years of bad writing and a bad approach to writing, where people take what went before as a guide to how writing should be done. And if zapping five years' worth of unverifiable contributions and starting again with sources in hand fixes it, that's a good thing.

      Unfortunately, some searching doesn't turn up much in the way of sources, written by identifiable people with the purpose of factual accuracy, from which it would be possible to do that. I can find sources mentioning this as one show as one of a number of shows hosted on a radio station (example) or discussing primarily the radio station rather than the shows (example), and some odds and ends (example), but nothing to support anything like a history of the show and its hosts as presented here. I cannot find anything even remotely supporting Proper Noun's content. Uncle G (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It is virtually impossible to provide a reference for comments made on the air. If this article is deleted because of that issue then all articles about radio shows that rely on on-air comments should be deleted. I have no vested interest in whether this article is kept or deleted. As a long time editor of this article and listener of the show my only interest has been to ensure that the article contains factual content. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. The assertion that information is unverifiable after the information is spoken directly by the subject is pure guesswork. If the true goal is to verify spoken information, then every similar radio wiki should be put under such scrutiny. And the very nature of Criticism or Controversy style topics is about opinion, and I added it only in response to the speculative guess the page is self-promotional and also being outdated by two years, which was a contradiction of statements. And I would further posit: Is it not just personal opinion to say "article causes more trouble than it is worth"? The very existence of this deletion discussion is mounted firmly on personal opinion and guessing. User:ProperNoun 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proper Noun (talk • contribs) [reply]
    • If information is not verifiable, it must be excluded from Wikipedia. That goes for on-air information. That may mean there is less info on radio shows, but that the way it goes.--Scott Mac 20:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely agreed. This sort of thing is particularly acute when we have a "sexy" and "chatty" and "humorous" program like this. Kayfabe (a concept in wrestling but with wider application in my view) is worthwhile reading. As a relevant example for this particular article, consider this unsourced claim: "Hamilton was born and raised in Terre Haute, Indiana where she grew up with an older brother in a house their family bought that was built for and previously lived in by midgets." There is absolutely no reason to chastise or be critical of these performers for putting forth such things, but also absolutely no reason to believe it is actually true. A tall attractive blonde (why do I get the feeling I will be quoted on the radio about this tomorrow morning?) who grew up in a house built for midgets is a humorous concept for a radio program - but it is not reliable information for an encyclopedia.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do see an issue concerning radio shows that are more well known than others such as Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern. It wouldn't surprise me if just about everything Howard Stern has talked about isn't recorded somewhere. Youtube has a great deal of content that fans have recorded and posted. Does that mean that articles about popular radio shows, for which it is possible to provide references for comments in the article, are kept while articles for obscure shows are deleted? If so then I don't see an issue as long as the verifiability standard is applied fairly. Dr. Morbius (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're missing a fairly fundamental point. Not everything said on air in these programs is necessarily true. The standard of verifiability that we, at Wikipedia, are supposed to have is that we use sources that actually have factual accuracy as their goal in the first place, rather than, say, entertainment for radio listeners. It's not about popularity. It's not about fame. It's not about audience figures. It's not even about fairness. Human knowledge is famously uneven, incomplete, lumpy, and unfair. It's about whether a subject has been properly documented, in depth, by identifiable people, with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, who actually had factual accuracy as their goals, in published works. It's about not being credulous enough to believe that everything said in broadcast entertainment programmes is factual. Louis Lucero II writing in the Daily Trojan and Greg Braxton writing in the Los Angeles Times had factual reportage as their goals, and we can evaluate their reputations for fact checking and accuracy. But a radio personality stating that xyr home was built for midgets in an entertainment programme is not necessarily even trying to state the facts accurately. So it's not acceptable to use such material as a source. That's bad, indiscriminate, credulous, encyclopaedia writing. Uncle G (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I perfectly understand what the fundamental point is. The veracity of the statement made on the air is irrelevant the only thing that matters is is it possible to provide a reference for the statement. I don't see why a recording of the individual making the statement is any less valid as a reference than a magazine article or a book or a link to some website that refers to the statement. Dr. Morbius (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, you clearly do not understand the point. We're making an encyclopaedia here. Our goal is factual accuracy, which verifiability is our means for achieving (in the absence of the better tools that simply don't work on a wholly open wiki-based project). If you don't get that verifiability involves having sources that are themselves accurate and factual, and aimed directly at that goal, as is clearly evident from your statement that veracity of sources is irrelevant, then you don't understand a very basic thing about Wikipedia. This isn't a jokebook. It's an encyclopaedia. The goal here is facts, not collecting and accruing comic remarks. Uncle G (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well then you're making up your own rules because according to this Wikipedia:Verifiability "factual accuracy" doesn't matter. If what you say is true then a whole host of articles need to be deleted starting with all the pseudoscience articles. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Verification flows from using a "reliable source" for that information. If you think that on-air banter constitutes a "reliable source" for the factual lives of the presenters, then I put it to you that you're making a genre confusion. It would be akin to sourcing information about prominent politicians from a satirical show. Sure, the source would be verifiable (and it might even be a BBC production), nevertheless it isn't a reliable means of verifying that information.--Scott Mac 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I thought the purpose of Wikipedia:Verifiability was to ensure that references for comments made by individuals are provided rather than verifying the veracity of the comments. From my reading of Wikipedia:Verifiability that's what it means to me. Dr. Morbius (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • One generally wins arguments more often if one applies commons sense to problems, rather than use literalism to evade it.--Scott Mac 21:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wow, an article I created caught the attention of the big man himself? I feel honored. (Well, ok, I didn't create the article so much as piece together the three individual articles that existed before). Anyway, there is significant coverage in reliable sources: This article in the Orange County Register, This article in the Los Angeles Times, as well as some minor coverage here, here and here. One can find even more coverage of each of the hosts individually: Frosty, Frank, Heidi. Also podcasts of the show are available so we can verify things that were said on the show (not necessarily that the things they said were true, but we can verify that they said them). "More trouble than it's worth" is not a valid reason to delete an article about a notable radio show--if there are persistent BLP problems that's why we have tools like semi-protection and pending changes. I haven't much time to be active on Wikipedia lately, but whatever time I can muster up I will try to use to improve this article. DHowell (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2010 (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 delete. WP:CSD#A7 - no credible claim of significance or importance JohnCD (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gayashopping.com[edit]

Gayashopping.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable website. I have not found any coverage. Haakon (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2010 (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. The question is basically "Are Irish R roads inherently notable?" Without offering my opinion on this subject (it's more a question for Wikipedia:WikiProject Roads), the consensus here seems to be that they are. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R830 road[edit]

R830 road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this road is notable. There are a lot of these. The references are all almanacs, and nothing at this point in the article indicates a regional road is notable. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The R830 road is part of a well-established and useful series of articles on Irish regional roads. This R830 initial entry is a stub awaiting additional information to round it out; for now, it is a starter article. The reference, above, to almanacs appears to be a misuse of the term; what is meant by it is unknown as none of the references used are almanacs at all; and, indeed, almanacs are valid references, even if none has been cited for the R830. This appears to be a red herring.
The following pages list, and link to, many existing Wikipedia articles on regional roads in various countries:
Regional road
Category:Roads in County Dublin
Category:Roads in the Republic of Ireland by county
List of numbered roads in York Region
List of Regional Roads in South Africa
Scroll down through the pages linked, above, to see the very comprehensive lists of similar, established Wikipedia articles, of which the R830 road is but one example.
--O'Dea (talk) 11:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be one example, but it seems to be one example of many roads that don't show the notability of the subject. To show notability you can't simply point to other articles, or say that it's useful. Likewise your argument below about the number of google hits is useless unless the quality of the results is considered (and they seem mostly just to consist of addresses). If it is waiting for additional information then can you give us some idea of what that is likely to be? Given that pretty much all of the regional road articles do not have third party reliable sources giving significant coverage it is difficult to envisage what sort of further information you expect to be forthcoming. Quantpole (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The real question is not whether R830 is notable is whether Regional roads in Ireland are notable. In the Republic of Ireland, the roads are in order of importance: Motorway, National Primary, National Secondary, Regional and Local. It would be safe to assume that all the motorways and national roads are notable and that the Local roads (of which there are thousands) are NOT notable. This leaves the approximately 700 Regional roads in Ireland. There are no roads related notability guidelines on wikipedia so WP:GNG must apply. The roads are verifiable, and for media coverage and sources, they are roads so generally its in the form of directions, so for the R830: [13]. The roads are all mapped as well. Snappy (talk) 11:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Snappy is correct is saying that the GNG apply but I really don't understand the source they have presented. All that is is some directions on a company website that happen to mention this road. This is surely the epitome of a "trivial mention". To show notability we need significant coverage, and I just don't see it. Quantpole (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: a) While Google search results do not in themselves confer notability, an apparent relative poverty of such results can encourage the perception that a subject is unimportant. Searching for the R830 road in Google does not yield many results because the route is more commonly referred to by any of its three constituent parts, Kill Lane, Kill Avenue, or York Street. Searches for these names yield many more results — 90,800 — a considerable improvement on searches for the official R830 name.

"Kill Lane" Dublin (10,500 results) + "Kill Avenue" Dublin (20,300 results) + "York Road" Dublin (60,000 results) = total R830 road Google results (90,800).

b) The online Irish Statute Book (irishstatutebook.ie), where laws and other state legal documents are available, notes that the R830 (as Kill Lane, etc.) acts as an important administrative boundary between constituent components of the local District Electoral Division. Each of the three constituent roads draws several mentions in the Statutory Instrument No. 17/1971 — Dublin County (District Electoral Divisions) Regulations, 1971. --O'Dea (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you go to the last page of those results you will in fact find 342, 423 and 484 = 1249 results, but even that is an overestimate as many of those results are not about those roads. I have also not seen any results specifically about the road - most are simply addresses for houses and businesses, and we could find similar results for any road in the world.
In terms of the administrative boundary - that's all the source says it is. There is nothing unusual or worthy of note about being an administrative boundary, and again, many roads are used as boundaries.
I can understand your concern about this AfD, as there are a lot of articles in Category:Regional Road. I haven't come across one yet which particularly demonstrates any sort of notability. Maybe a single AfD isn't the place to discuss this however, due to the large number of articles potentially affected. Quantpole (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a widespread problem, and maybe anecdotally, I've noticed a lot more of it in the last few weeks. Shadowjams (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure what you mean. (It doesn't look like regional road articles have been up for deletion recently: Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ireland/archive). Quantpole (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't all been at AfD, and they certainly haven't been restricted to Ireland. There have been a lot of road articles created recently of questionable notability. I don't see any link between the creators, but I've noticed an uptick. Not sure if it's just my own confirmation bias or if it's part of something else. Shadowjams (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. It's probably because people have run out of major roads to create. Quantpole (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per O'Dea.Red Hurley (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above to keep. Plus, to Shadowjams who said, "If you go to the last page of those results you will in fact find...". The fact is that the Google search imposes its own limit on result pages initially shown; in fact it finds more search results than appear in that first-shown list, but if you click on the link to see more on the last page you referred to, there are many more hits there than your presentation of the facts suggests. Ischium (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was me actually. Yes there are more results, but as google says, "they are very similar to the ones already displayed". Anyway, even if it was only about a 1000 results in total that wouldn't be a problem if those results were useful in determining notability, which they don't appear to be. Quantpole (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2010 (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 merge to Caledonia, Ontario. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonia Toll House[edit]

Caledonia Toll House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Generally unremarkable building, unsourced, also unsourced claims of ghost sightings Nmatavka (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If sufficient coverage to establish notability can't be found, redirect and merge into the town's article, Caledonia, Ontario--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless something can be found to even document this place's existence; I found only 17 low-quality Google hits. If it can be proven this place exists, merge and redirect into Caledonia, Ontario article per Milowent above. Strip out any unreferenced ghost haunting material when doing so. I found nothing in Google's News Archive to support a separate article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Caledonia, Ontario. This book was the only substantial coverage of the toll house I could find, aside from the self-published Google hits. So it does exist, and is of some significance to Caledonia, but it doesn't seem to warrant its own article with that little coverage. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the verifiable information to Caledonia, Ontario. Unless reliable sources can confirm what the current resident experiences when being haunted, then that stuff has got to go. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ramapuram Narasimhar[edit]

Ramapuram Narasimhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a Hindu temple in India. It's just one of millions of places of worship around the world, with nothing to indicate why this particular temple is sufficiently notable to deserve an encyclopaedia article of its own. I can't find anything relevant on the web, either. Fails WP:N, WP:RS andy (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2010 (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 WP:BIG, it doesn't matter how successful he is on Youtube, we need reliable sources to prove his notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ray William Johnson[edit]

Ray William Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person, fails general notability guideline Auche (talk) 02:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, one reliable source does not a biographical article make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Who is that guy? I never seen him on Youtube. wiooiw (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A compendium of original research. The only reliable source is a listing in the Independent as a most-watched video; no coverage about him individually. JNW (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, not a personal fan, but this guy is huge on youtube, as this article says, [14], "The kings of vlogging are Philip DeFranco and his rival Ray William Johnson". I suspect there is more coverage that could be added to the article.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete this? He is the 3rd most subscribed on YOutube. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilios1310 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are enough news sources to create an article. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as noted by JNW, the one link that even comes close to being a reliable source doesn't really cover him. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete without Prejudice - Too soon for prime time? Yes. Possibly heading for prime time? Perhaps. Yeah, I know, crystal ball, blah blah blah... Carrite (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Of course he's notable! I'm not a personal fan of his and truthfully I think he's rather annoying, but he is notable. His videos are watched by an average of 1,000,000 + people within their first week of being posted and he's the fourth most subscribed person on YouTube with around 1,700,000 people subscribed to him. SashaJohn (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Of course he's not notable! Otherwise there would be an abundance of non-trivial coverage about this WP:BLP subject! I could care less how many people subscribe to a video he's involved in. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 01:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's the fourth most-subscribed channel on YouTube, and each of his videos gain about 2-3 million views in just one week, which is faster than even nigahiga and Fred's videos. His videos are always featured on YouTube, and several other personalities like Michael Buckley have given him notoriety. If there is not enough notable info on him for an article, then I think he should at least be included in List of YouTube personalities, since he's at least ten times notable than so-called celebrities such as Merton. --SpongeSebastian (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as the image is deleted or replaced. The article is a stub.Personal opinion doesn't want to give him publicity though, but that's out of the decision. mechamind90 01:32, 16 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total Armor[edit]

Total Armor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod removed by creator. A nonnotable arcade game. Google search for "total armor" reveals nothing apparently about the game, and "total armor game" isn't any better. A search for that plus the company name brings up the publishing company's page and then a link to this Wiki article. I don't see any other indication of notability. Shadowjams (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total Armor[edit]

To:Shadowjams, みんな空の下, wiooiw

From:Dltl2010

Date:11 August 2010 19:50 (GMT+8)

Re:Total Armor

Total Armor was an arcade game existed in Hong Kong during 2009 and now it is not avaliable anymore. You can find some info of this game on www.game3talk.com (http://www.game3talk.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=20043&extra=page%3D1) I write the article as it forms part the history of arcade game, even it is not very popular. Also, please note that this article is still work in process.

Lastly, to decide whether an article notable/have to be deleted or not basing on the search results of google is silly. In fact, the info of Total Armor can be found on internet is not much, so I start writing an article on wiki in order to make it more informative.

I always welcome opinions and proposals, but please be constructive. Thanks you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dltl2010 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 11 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of surname repositories[edit]

List of surname repositories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is so a non-article that I cannot find a standard reason for deletion. Ulad (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Tavix. Well put. Carrite (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one link is to a sister project, so doesnt count as a list item. the other doesnt archive surnames. so this "article" doesnt even have content.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (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 afrozoodle with extreme prejudice, i.e speedy delete. Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afrozoodle[edit]

Afrozoodle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable neologism E Wing (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2010 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omnis Network[edit]

Omnis Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dankim1180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Web-hosting company. Fails WP:ORG. The only coverage it seems to have received are those in webhosting directory cites which count little for WP:N. They mainly list product plans rather than discuss the company. The company doesn't seem to have received, for example, substantial coverage from at least a moderate-sized newspaper. Contested prod (see User_talk:Christopher_Connor#Web_Hosting_Industry). Comparisons with other webhosting companies, but they at least have some coverage outside directory sites. Christopher Connor (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Economic Development Company[edit]

Marion Economic Development Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG, WP:CLUB, and WP:GNG. Organization appears to be a local, non-profit business development group. Reliable, secondary sources are not forthcoming to establish notability. This advertisement-like article was created by a single-purpose account. SnottyWong talk 17:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are thousands of these Economic Development Company or Redevelopment Agency type organizations in the U.S.; there are 17 of them in San Diego alone. There is nothing to indicate any particular notability about this one. --MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Marion, Iowa. If this choice is preferred and no one else volunteers to spend ten minutes doing the merge, then feel free to ping me on my talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austin City Limits performers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Austin City Limits performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Big ol' laundry list, impossible to source without tracking down every single episode. Gross violation of WP:IINFO. Last AFD closed as no consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree, it's a hopeless effort to try to complete the list, and per WP:IINFO. We desperately need a guideline for lists. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 23:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG's well-thought-out analysis in the prior AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, horrible list idea and I'm not sure why it has taken 3 nominations to get around to removing this page. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the reasons articulated by DGG and Russeasby in the last AfD, and because, in effect, this is a compacted list of episodes of an important and influential television series. An appearance on Austin City Limits is a hallmark of notability, especially in certain genres of music. Compare the list of musical guests on Saturday Night Live that is incorporated in List of Saturday Night Live episodes. The content is verifiable from the ACL website, although it takes some effort--which is one of the reasons why this list is valuable. Maybe (if it survives this latest deletion effort) the list could be improved by reorganization in table form, so that the data could be sorted by date as well as name.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The items in the list are indeed sourced and I have added an inline cite. Lists on WP are not required to be comprehensive (unless they claim to be). The list is discriminating (includes only ACL performers). Whether it is a "horrible" idea or "hopeless" is a matter for the people editing the article to address. I am only dealing with the points raised in this nomination since it seems to me that the arguments for deletion raised previously were satisfactorily rebutted. Thincat (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perfectly fine list with clear inclusion criteria, and per DGG's comments. Lugnuts (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's just call this a well done and useful list and get on with life, shall we? Carrite (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arxiloxos's comments. Just because something is a long list does not mean it violates WP:IINFO. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:48, 14 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Lerme Goodman[edit]

Deborah Lerme Goodman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. No sources forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 11 August 2010 (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Koltz[edit]

Tony Koltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO with no sources forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This writer's claim to fame is that he ghost-wrote a couple of books by General Zinni (not quite ghost-wrote, since he is credited as co-writer) and that he wrote two of the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. Not even close to meeting WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2010 (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP)[edit]

Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability; all references are self-referential. Gerardw (talk) 11:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Foreign Policy Research Institute; the FPRI at least claims it [15], and I could not find what connection (if any) this program has with the University of Pennsylvania as claimed in the article. In any case the program is not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2010 (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Art Sanders[edit]

Art Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real notability outside his news show; filled in a couple months on The Price Is Right and that's it. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I couldn't find any references that establish notability either. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2010 (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Wishink[edit]

Anna Wishink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable player Mayumashu (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2010 (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. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viktorija Rajicic[edit]

Viktorija Rajicic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable player, both at the junior and senior level Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has also competed in the senior event of the 2010 Australian Open [17] Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But not in the main draw (she got a wild card into the qualifying draw). The guidelines are not explicit, but the implication is that one competes in a main draw of a grand slam tourney to be notable Mayumashu (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those guidelines wasn't clearly developed and can be easily challenged. It wasn't created by experts in the tennis area. The creator of the guidelines himself did say that he "Don't follow tennis much", per here. And I can't also find any concrete concensus being made prior to the creation of those guidelines. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline modifications

Below are some suggestions on what merits a professional tennis player a WP article:

  • Women tennis players who has won at least a title in the professional ITF Women's Circuit (this is considered equivalent to winning a match in the WTA Tour)
  • Players who has featured for their country in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or in the Olympic Games
  • Women tennis players who has been ranked in the top 500 in singles or in the top 250 in doubles should be considered notable by default
  • Men tennis players who has been ranked in the top 600 in singles or in the top 300 in doubles should be considered notable by default
  • Players who has beaten any other player ranked in the top 200 in the singles ranking or in the top 100 in doubles in any professional tennis tournament
  • Players who has won any junior Grand slam tennis tournaments to be considered notable by default
  • Any professional junior tennis players who has been in the top 5 of the ITF Junior world rankings [18]
  • Professional players who has significant coverage in the media

Imho, this Afd and others involving tennis players notability should be withdrawn immediately pending further discussions and consensus. The guidelines given at WP:ATHLETE here aren't concrete enough and isn't via proper discussions. Maybe this should go to RfC or to the tennis wikiproject talkpage instead to invite greater participation. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Make "Guideline modifications" collapsed as it is not the right place for it. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline because the community accepted it by consenus. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the guidelines need a lot of work and agree with about half of your suggested modifications put here - yours are certainly closer to what I see as the ideal for WP and tennis bios than the first crack at it so to speak. I started a talk on ther matter here [19]. I will take the liberty of cutting and pasting the suggetions made here to there and replying to them there. I will also withdraw these nominations, as you prefer, until there is a better set of guidelines. Mayumashu (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn Discussion needed on better keep/delete guidelines for tennis bios Mayumashu (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though you are withdrawing, I would note that its a BLP created after March with no sources. As such it should be deleted. All BLPs require sources. -DJSasso (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources has been added to the BLP. Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. Nominator has withdrawn but there are outstanding "delete" !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Gonzalez[edit]

Lucia Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable enough a tennis player for WP bio Mayumashu (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. The nominator has withdrawn but there is an outstanding "delete" !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – From what I can tell, she meets neither the GNG nor project-specific guidelines. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:20, 12 August 2010 (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 PCP Torpedo/ANbRX article. Non-admin closure. みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCP Tornado[edit]

PCP Tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Incorrect" name for PCP Torpedo/ANbRX. I want to make it a redirect. Cannibaloki 01:05, 11 August 2010 (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. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BRAD Insight. As I have explained on that AfD, feel free to act as future consensus dictates. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brad (British Rates and Data)[edit]

Brad (British Rates and Data) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 23:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge with the better BRAD Insight which covers exactly the same topic. It's notable enough but we don't need multiple articles on it. Barnabypage (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2010 (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. While I agree that an article about a defunct organisation should not be deleted for that reason, the consensus is that the sources available are insufficiently reliable and/or numerous to show that this organisation was notable. However, should suitable reliable independent sources be found, then this article could be recreated - notability is not temporary; if an organisation can be shown to have been notable in the past, it meets the criteria on Wikipedia for inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSCOM[edit]

OSCOM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This defunct organization does not indicate that it ever been notable. The single existing reference is blog. You search for sources adding the string "open source content management". There are many google links that show they existed [21], that their website had a list of open source tools [22], and that they sponsored conferences (at least three) [23]. Several of the google book/scholar links duplicate each other, so the number of real links is much lower than a raw search would show. Many other links copy information from the Wikipedia article so they also do not appear relevant. Other sources are directory pages which WP:N and WP:ORG strictly dismiss. I do not see multiple and significant reliable sources about the organization while I do see many minor, trivial, and tangential mentions of it. I therefore suggest delete this article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - shortlived, no trace in deeds. Ulad (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel very strongly that we should not be in the business of deleting articles about organisations just because they are defunct. However, I realise that there is a question of notability anyway and of extant reliable sources. The demise of the OSCOM website (and I looked on the Wayback machine) does not help. I have added a couple of references to conferences (and archived the references on WebCite just in case!). It seems to me the organisation certainly was wikinotable and that there would be ample reliable sources if OSCOM still existed. I think there are still sufficient references to keep this article alive and that in terms of notability OSCOM has not (yet?) faded into the mists of time. Thincat (talk) 10:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly. Were this organization notable at one time, it would be notable for all time, and that's the issue: the references don't really establish that this organization ever left a significant mark on history to be remembered for all time. The added references are a report of a conference the organization hosted in 2002, and a set of video links from a 2003 conference. They don't really tell us much other than that this was a trade organization that hosted some conferences. Not sure that amounts to long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources are not reliable. I was unable to find any reference providing significant coverage. Alive or defunct, it's still not notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2010 (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 Alaska Rural Communications Service. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K02JZ[edit]

K02JZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Station is not notable. Previously marked as a "The CW" affiliate, but no sources were ever given to back that information up, even after a references tag was placed back in 2009 (failing WP:V). With "The CW" information removed and information from the FCC showing this is nothing more than a rebroadcaster of Alaska's Alaska Rural Communications Service (a rebroadcaster of CBS, NBC, FOX and PBS for rural villages), it fails WP:N. Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as article fails notability criteria for broadcast media. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a mere 18 watt translator. It is federally licensed, but I could find no information about it other than directory listings, and without proof that it originates a portion of its broadcast programming, it fails the criteria for notability of broadcast stations in the essay cited by Armbrust, as well as WP:ORG and WP:N, the general notability guidelines. If newspapers or other reliable sources such as a tribal council website show that it has a studio and does local programming (news, weather, sports, whatever) then I would reconsider. Edison (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I did some more digging, the "Stony River Traditional Council" has no website and neither does the town, typical for rural Alaska. I did look on the State of Alaska website under their "Detailed Community Summaries" which list anything from how the town gets water, electricity, etc. to what radio and TV stations are available, along with a plathora of other information. K02JZ isn't listed, but Alaska Rural Communications Service or ARCS, is listed. Also, the station, while licensed to the Stony River Traditional Council, it's address is 5900 East Tudor Road in Anchorage, the exact location of Alaska Rural Communications Service. So, all evidence points to it rebroadcaster of ARCS. I should note, ownership of the ARCS rebroadcaster by the town government or council the station is located is not unusual, it is kinda commonplace, but all stations' addresses are always 5900 East Tudor Road in Anchorage and are not located in the town of license. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alaska Rural Communications Service. If this is simply a rebroadcaster of the ARCS, then redirecting the translator to the parent station/service is the proper thing to do (WP:BROADCAST says "In general this sort of station does not merit its own article on Wikipedia, but rather a redirect to the originating station."). DHowell (talk)
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. Jujutacular talk 00:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einar's Faction (Heroscape)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Einar's Faction (Heroscape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Aquilla's Faction (Heroscape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vydar's Faction (Heroscape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ullar's Faction (Heroscape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Utgar's Faction (Heroscape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jandar's Faction (Heroscape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all entirely in-universe plot summaries that do not cite any reliable, independent sources. I cannot find anything about these factions outside of Hasbro's home pages and Heroscape blogs. There is no content that could be retained, so a merge is inappropriate, and these are not plausible search terms which makes a redirect also not feasible. Reyk YO! 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per Reyk: part of a near-WP:Walled garden of articles and malformed orphan categories, appropriate to the game's website and fan sites but way too much information for an encyclopedia. All totally unsourced except to Heroscape sites. (And if they survive AfD they need to be renamed "Einar's faction" etc, as there is no need for disambiguation) PamD (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I was going to nominate these any day myself. These are the result of an attempt to "cleanup" the coverage of Heroscape- none of this is needed. There's no notability, no encyclopedic value, and no reliable sources that even mention any of this, as far as I can see. J Milburn (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and PamD. Drmies (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as much as I enjoyed that game, this is one walled garden that really needs some weeding. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:45, 11 August 2010 (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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral (Charlotte, North Carolina)[edit]

Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral (Charlotte, North Carolina) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable. we might as well make articles about every church in the US WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 00:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep due to Festival: For the sole reason that the church's "Yiasou Festival" is noted in several articles, I think that is notable (so a seperate article might be born from this) but with nothing coming up in the National Register of Historic Places, it doesn't have notability of being historical, nothing important (that I can see) has happened this (with the exception of this festival), it is just your run-of-the-mill Greek Orthodox church. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Due to notability shown below by Thincat, that I didn't know was available prior to my vote, I am changing my vote to Keep but still think more references need added to the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No view as now, but it is a cathedral, so it is not "your run-of-the-mill Greek Orthodox church". We do not have articles on all churches, but I think, for example, that we do have articles on all Anglican cathedrals in the UK. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I actually added an article last week about Raphoe Cathedral in Northern Ireland, and there are still a couple to add. But a Cathedral of a major denomination is notable. JASpencer (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Claims of notability are present (although not all referenced). Ulad (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, please. There are plenty of cathedrals in the U.S. that have articles (see List of cathedrals in the United States) so they seem to be accepted as having an inherent notability. Also, the article claims additional notability. Thincat (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are endless articles on Anglican and Catholic cathedrals in the US, and not many about Orthodox cathedrals. This is one of the few Greek Orthodox Cathedrals in America, not to mention it is the only one in North Carolina, which I think makes it notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Rather a thin article, and devoid of independent referencing, but could well be expanded not deleted, in my opinion. Cathedrals of major denominations are likely to be notable, but more evidence would be welcome. Peridon (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Expandable does not mean expendable. This is a Greek Orthodox Cathedral, so is inherently notable. It is the only Greek Orthodox Cathedral in North Carolina, which is additional notbility. JASpencer (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at the very least, the festival it holds is plenty notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cathedrals are far beyond typical churches. Some sources are already present, and anyway if we consider bishops pretty much inherently notable, it's only reasonable to extend the same recognition to the places where they have their cathedrae. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a cathedral, perhaps of a denomination that is not large in the area, but a cathedral nonetheless. But merge with Charlotte, North Carolina in preference to deleting. Merging, with the place where it is situated, is commonly a good solution for NN churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a cathedral, not "every church in the U.S."  Frank  |  talk  00:18, 16 August 2010 (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. No prejudice against a redirect being created. Mkativerata (talk) 03:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 second[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1 second (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Second and half life already cover the official definitions of these subjects, and 1 second seems to be just a list of trivial information without references. -- Marawe (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2010 (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 keep. Wrong venue, needs to be listed at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IOtop (Unix)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
IOtop (Unix) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)

This page redirects to Linux, which is not directly relevant to it. I believe an empty page is more helpful than a redirect to Linux.

Delete per nom. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist at WP:RFD; redirects aren't discussed here. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2010 (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 per WP:SNOW. The nominator has not provided a reason for deletion. A dispute about a section in the article should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qu'aiti[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Qu'aiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The list of "Current Royal Family" is a big fat lie, they are not alone among the royal family, there are other members of the royal family but the person who made the article wants to mention only his people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikasbhalla (talk • contribs)

  • Keep, this plainly was an actual autonomous realm, and semi-independent states are definitely worthy of articles. If part of the article is a big fat lie, please discuss its removal at the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 23:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nyttend. If the nominator has issues with content, then I advise discussing it, but not petty acts like section blanking and nominating for deletion. Green Giant (talk) 23:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason given to delete the page itself. The problem isn't the article, but a section within the article. There are other ways to deal with something that may be a "big fat lie" (or, more neutrally, an inaccuracy) besides deleting the article. One could edit it out; one could put a disclaimer on there to clarify that there is no reigning royal family or claimant to a throne; one could announce one's intentions on a talk page and then carry out the fix-- everyone is entitled to edit a page. Mandsford 14:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article content issues about what to include or not include do not mean that this is not-notable. A quick Google Scholar search showed a number of mentions of this as a state. Likewise Google books. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 15 August 2010 (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/2010_August_11&oldid=1142642591"