Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 22

< 21 August	23 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State Capital LLC[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a spinout from Luca A. Longobardi, which is also at AfD. I'm nominating this for the same reason as the first: This is a paid editing piece that was solicited by it's subject in violation of our conflict of interest guidelines and our policy that Wikipedia is not a medium for self-promotion. This page was developed through this job on elance.com in which the client "lucalongobardi" wrote looking to create a nice report story page on my company also I would like to attach my name as the founder of the company, to my wife name, that she´s already on wikipedia, and increase exposure on google. and also I would like to hire somebody that can increase my exposure and my company exposure on search engines. The service provider is "annaloza", the same account name as the single purpose account that signed up to create this. This should be deleted as a promotional puff piece of a nonnotable subject. Them From Space 22:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the previous page, I feel this topic is quite similar to others found on Wikipedia - company descriptions. I can edit it to be more in line with Wiki's standards, but I don't feel it deserves to be deleted. The guy hired me, yes, but I am a freelancer - I am here to put together words for people who feel they can't do so themselves. I don't feel he wanted this for "promotion" - rather because he felt his achievements and actions were notable. I don't think "solicitation" should be a factor here, and I do not feel this article is advertising in any way; in addition, it has several credible sources. Let me know what I can do to edit both of these (this and Luca A.) to closer match Wiki's standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaloza (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, let me point out that although these are the only two articles I have contributed to Wiki thus far, I have had my account for three years prior to this and did not create it recently and solely for this purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annaloza (talk • contribs) 00:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Anna (talk) 00:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotion for a non-notable business. --Crunch (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability from what I can see. Additionally, paying someone else to write an article about you or your business is the same as doing it yourself. If it is truely notable it will eventually get written about without paying. Turgan ^Talk 09:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it nobody really cares except the guy that paid for it and he doesn't count. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails notability criteria of WP:ORG. Pure advertising. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:12, 27 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 List of Transformers planets. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Junk (Transformers)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded with the dubious rationale "has significant fanbase", this is an unsourced article about a fictional planet which asserts no independent notability. Entire article is effectively plot summary. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename Junkion: The planet is actually named "Junkion" and "Junk" is the nickname used withing the Transformers' universe. Junkions are central to the plot of the Transformer movies [1]. The Transformers is unquestionably notable. The standard for inclusion as a wikipedia article for elements within a notable fictional work is listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The element that is the subject of this AfD is verifiably important within the work, and the Real-world coverage (movie reviews, ect.) of the subject also indicates that this article is eligible for inclusion. Inniverse (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The same challenge for proof of this unsupported, bare, assertion is given as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velocitron. Prove your argument with cited sources. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. I did, See "Junkions are central to the plot of the Transformer movies [2]" in my argument above. Inniverse (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the inhabitants, not the planet. This AfD isn't about the inhabitants. You still haven't provided any evidence that the planet passes WP:GNG (or WP:FICT for that matter). That link could be used in an article about the characters, but it's useless here. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- A few passing mentions on a bloggish site just don't cut it as substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. This article amounts to excessive trivia about a fairly unremarkable aspect of a work of fiction. The fact that the Transformers franchise is undeniably notable does not mean that notability extends to any and all trivia regarding said franchise; all topics are required to demonstrate their own- and this does not. Reyk _YO! 07:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets, from whence this appears to be a WP:SS breakout. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets, Howmany of these are there?Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers: Cybertron and/or List of Transformers planets. Not notable enough for its own article. WP:FANCRUFT SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^confabulate 17:05, 24 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 List of Transformers planets. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Planet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded with the dubious rationale "has significant fanbase", this is an unsourced article about a fictional planet which asserts no independent notability. Entire article is effectively plot summary. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Transformers is unquestionably notable. This article meets the for inclusion as listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as an article for elements within a notable fictional work. Inniverse (talk) 01:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The same challenge for proof of this unsupported, bare, boilerplate text, assertion is given as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velocitron. Prove your argument with cited sources. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- No coverage in reliable, independent sources as far as I can see. There are, however, other unrelated things called "jungle planet": the general concept of planets covered in jungle, and what appears to be a clothing store. Both of these have more of a claim to notability than this minor fictional location, so there should be no prejudice against creating another article of the same name if this one is deleted. Reyk _YO! 07:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think there may be sources available, but I just can't find anything reliable ([3]). The information won't be lost as there's already an article on this at Transformers Wiki, which looks like one of the more usable specific wikis. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets, where I don't see it mentioned. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets,Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers: Cybertron and/or List of Transformers planets. Not notable enough for its own article. WP:FANCRUFT SnottyWong ^communicate 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^communicate 17:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect as Jungle Planet (Transformers) to List of Transformers planets, and make this a disambiguation page since this planet apparently is mentioned in Transformers: Energon. Looking at the google news archive for "jungle planet" transformers, about half of the sources mentioning jungle planet were describing the planet Pandora of Avatar (2009 film). Note: I'm willing to change my vote if external sources are found. —CodeHydro 01:21, 27 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 List of Transformers planets. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gigantion[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded with the dubious rationale "has significant fanbase", this is an unsourced article about a fictional planet which asserts no independent notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Transformers is unquestionably notable. This article meets the for inclusion as listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as an article for elements within a notable fictional work. Inniverse (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The same challenge for proof of this unsupported, bare, boilerplate text, assertion is given as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velocitron. Prove your argument with cited sources. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Transformers being notable does not equal all crufty trivia about it also being notable. All topics must be able to establish their own in order for a stand-alone article to be tenable, and this fails. I can find nothing on this fictional planet beyond Transformers blogs, wikis and online forums. Reyk _YO! 07:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets, where it does not yet appear to be listed. Jclemens (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets, does not seem to be notable in and of itsslef.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers: Cybertron and/or List of Transformers planets. Not notable enough for its own article. WP:FANCRUFT SnottyWong ^confer 16:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^chatter 16:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers: Cybertron and/or List of Transformers planets. Insufficiently notable to justify an article of its own. --Korruski (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets per SW, SS, and JC. GregJackP Boomer! 20:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the planets list 92.17.22.20 (talk) 09:55, 28 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 (default to keep). Valid arguments both ways -- neither seems stronger than another. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 01:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steelhaven[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded with the summary "significant fanbase". Unsourced article which consists of nothing but plot summary, about a fictional spacecraft that does not appear to have any independent notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Transformers is unquestionably notable. This article meets the for inclusion as listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as an article for elements within a notable fictional work. Inniverse (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
or Merge into List of Tranformers spacecraft Inniverse (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The same challenge for proof of this unsupported, bare, boilerplate text, assertion is given as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velocitron. Prove your argument with cited sources. Uncle G (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is even more trivial and non-notable than the other minor Transformers location articles up for deletion. No coverage in reliable secondary sources, and the article is just one long, crufty, unsourced plot summary. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~List of Transformers planets~~, where it does not yet appear to be listed. Jclemens (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about we try to merge this and some other articles into List of Tranformers spacecraft instead? Jclemens (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is trivial in the extream.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^babble 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as super-trivial fancruft. SnottyWong ^babble 18:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The guideline article Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supports the notion that this article should be merged (not deleted). Inniverse (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that List of Transformers spacecraft is a bare list created by User:Inniverse after this AfD began, presumably in order to avoid deletion once the AfD began to lean that way. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The List of Transformers spacecraft was created at the suggestion of Jclemens above because, according to policy, the right thing to do is to merge articles like this into such an article - so it was created to facilitate that action. The "List of Transformers spacecraft" article is needed in any event. Inniverse (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the spacecrafts list 92.17.22.20 (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article under construction. No need to rush to deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is entirely unverified and no sources are presented in this discussion.--Pink Bull 14:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the spacecraft list, or merge if someone's willing to change it into a proper content list rather than just names. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers spacecraft, not just a redirect, but as Alzarian16 says, a proper content list. Dream Focus 23:22, 29 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 List of Transformers planets. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulos[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced (for five years) article about a fictional planet; does not appear to have any individual notability; entire article is in-universe and plot summary. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to List of Transformers planets. This planet has been mentioned in the toyline itself, the cartoon and the comic book, so it's definitely worth at least mentioning on Wikipedia. JIP | Talk 05:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to List of Transformers planets. Not notable enough for its own article. WP:FANCRUFT SnottyWong ^converse 18:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of Transformers planets pursuant to the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Inniverse (talk) 13:45, 27 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) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fartbarf[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Non-notable band, fails WP:MUSIC. Minor coverage. Reconsider ! 13:58, 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, :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition, I would also like to include Wikipedia:Editor review/Earlmusic91, User:Earlmusic91/Fartbarf (band), Fartbarf (band), File:Fartbarf gasser1.jpg, File:Fartbarf gasser2.jpg, File:Fartbarf gasser3.jpg, File:Fartbarf gasser4.jpg, File:Fartbarf gasser5.jpg, File:Fartbarf gasser6.jpg, File:Fartbarf promo2.jpg, and Talk:Fartbarf for deletion to discourage these SPAs. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like it might be a joke article. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 02:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 23 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. extransit (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nylon (magazine)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable magazine, no third-party sources to establish notablity. Yworo (talk) 21:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Magazine is very well known and sold worldwide. --neon white talk 22:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then it should be trivial to find several independent reviews as required to show notability. Where are they? Yworo (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral leaning towards keep but find some reliable sources first from third-parties. Needs more notability to be established to be stable.--Dripping oil (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The magazine sees near-universal availability on most American newsstands and magazine racks. It is one of the lower-tier magazines, but it's still an important one among fashion conscious youths. However admittedly the commonness of the title word will frustrate searches which are usually a cinch with other titles. Nate • (chatter) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A very notable magazine. Here are some references that may help: Interview with its publisher in the publication of the Magazine Publishers of America. Article in Media Life Magazine documenting its nomination in 2001 for an award from the American Society of Magazine Editors. I can find more if you require them. --Crunch (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now has WP:RS sources about founding, and Crunch's external links, one as cite. --Lexein (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The above-cited references indicate that Nylon is in the company of some very well known (and unquestioned) publications with similar (100,000 to 400,000) circulation, such as Harper's, Mother Jones, Saveur and Texas Monthly—Roman Spinner (talk) 07:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At least as of now has plenty of sources to establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks notable enough now.--Caravan train (talk) 19:01, 27 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) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asynchronous Synchronous Post Feedback Mechanism[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:PROMOTION and WP:COI. The author of this article is also the owner and only participant in the open source code repository that this article links too[4]. --Martin (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Martin. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:34, 28 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 Neon Trees. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Branden Campbell[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable outside Neon Trees, per WP:BAND, he should redirect to Neon Trees. G News CTJF83 chat 20:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

then redirect it? --neon white talk 22:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:SNOWBALL I suggest closing this discussion and redirecting as suggested. No need to go through the usual procedures.--Dripping oil (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neon Trees per notability criteria for bands. (Members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band.) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just wanted to make it "official" before someone reverted my redirect. CTJF83 chat 03:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per discussion.--Caravan train (talk) 19:02, 27 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 - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royston municipal picnic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of a series of pages that have been edited with a section by User:Simonwalker69 to say how they are hoaxes. Already deleted Hitchin Signpost Case per db-hoax, but the rest are less blatant and so I've nominated them here. Delete per WP:HOAX. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Silly.Borock (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone posts proof that thes sources are genuine. Too implausible for me to bother checking myself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Blatant hoax article. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:50, 24 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, snowball close/hoax Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Hitchin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of a series of pages that have been edited with a section by Simonwalker69 (talk · contribs) to say how they are hoaxes. Already deleted Hitchin Signpost Case per db-hoax, but the rest are less blatant and so I've nominated them here. Delete per WP:HOAX. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 19:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article says topic does not exist.Borock (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only use of West Hitchin found on Google is the West Hitchin Action Group. Geunine or not, that's not enough. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax article lacking any semblance of legitimacy. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:56, 24 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. A7 Tone 21:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe popp stadium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: Unremarkable sports complex for a high school (Mooresville High School). Airplaneman ✈ 19:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability. --Crunch (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable...the high school doesn't even have a page. CTJF83 chat 20:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Tagged as A7 as such. みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:01, 22 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) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Harycki[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable politician, mayor of small town WuhWuzDat 19:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After cleaning up the POV on the article and looking for sources, I don't think this person meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Stillwater, Minnesota as article fails notability criteria for politicians, but is a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you censor comments about a mayor who is using your media as a free ad instead of simply deleting it as suggested? Elections have finite time frames and every day he gets your unabashed support is un-American! Either allow comments about his failed mayorship, or take the topic totally down. If you do not, I will file a complaint with the election board regarding your campaign ad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.196.123.181 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC) — 184.196.123.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. Jmlk 1 7 02:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is a blatant attempt to get free campaign advertising. The links all point to the current re-election campaign.173.141.47.243 (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC) — 173.141.47.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I disagree with your analysis that the article is blatant advertising. It's pretty simple with minimal content. It doesn't even mention that he's running for re-election. It certainly is not true that all the links point to his campaign. One of the sources is a local news article about all the candidates. The other one uses his campaign website to verify biographical information. In addition, I don't believe the sourcing violates WP:RS. The issue here is that subject fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and most likely the article will be deleted in a couple of days. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Stillwater, Minnesota - per nom, is a non-notable politician whose article fails both WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO; however, it is a viable search term, and should redirect to the article about the town/city. --- Barek (talk) - 17:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable local politician. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:14, 27 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. Tone 15:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Somalia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a list. Isn't Wikipedia a directory? I don't think so. みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while WP:DIRECTORY is true in many cases, that particular policy usually only refers to things such as sales catalogues and contacts. Useful reference lists of this nature however are common on Wikipedia and are in line with policy. Take List of waterfalls in India for instance. In saying that, the page could do with a bit of cleanup, but that's not a reason to delete it.--Dripping oil (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point of personal information: Is it this list of universities in a country, in particular, that you think should be deleted or also the many others, such as List of universities in Canada, List of universities in England or List of universities in Australia? Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm saying. Such lists do not actually violate WP:DIRECTORY because they are not sales catalogues, non-encyclopedic cross categorizations etc. That is why these lists exist on Wikipedia.--Dripping oil (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear, my question is directed at the nominator. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the WP:DIRECTORY reason. Maybe this page needs cleanup; I see too may red links, which are supposed to be external links or to be removed per external links policy. みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dripping oil. The universities are obviously notable. The page could use a cleanup though. Middayexpress (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No, Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a directory, but it is supposed to be an encyclopedia which people would consult to find out information, and this article has the potential to be far more than a list of blue links. Higher education and Somalia are both encyclopedic topics. Africa and the rest of the Third World are underrepresented, even on Wikipedia, which still does better than the rest of the internet. I would like to see the red links lead to external links rather than being deleted. Mandsford 13:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep completable, reasonable, encyclopedic list. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Jclemens (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this was a good faith nomination but the nominator may not be aware of various standards at Wikipedia. Can I recommend a perusal of WP:CLT? That's a good introduction to what kinds of list are generally deemed appropriate - and to what extent Wikipedia sometimes does resemble a directory! TheGrappler (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dripping oil.--Caravan train (talk) 19:06, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tzedek (UK Charity)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORG. References are to the subject's own web site, its founder, or to coalitions and umbrella organizations of which the subject is a part. None deal directly and substantially with the subject. Bsherr (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There appear to be mentions in the following sources:
- Christopher J. H. Wright (2003). God and Morality, Book 1. Thinking Through Religion. Oxford University Press. p. 139. ISBN 0199148392.
- Ann Lovelace (2002). Beliefs, values & traditions. Joy White. Heinemann. p. 189. ISBN 0435302612.
- Bernard Williams (2001). One World Many Issues. Nelson Thornes. p. 169. ISBN 0748762574.
- Marianne Fleming (2003). Revise for GCSE Religious Studies AQA B: Thinking about God and Morality. Heinemann. p. 45. ISBN 0435307002.

All are easy to find on Google Books. Are these enough for notability? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it clear that any/all of these references are to this organisation rather than to the wider Hebrew word for righteousness? Taking that back having checked: now a Keep on the basis of these examples. AllyD (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect so. --Bsherr (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable as demonstrated by the numerous references found by Kenilworth Terrace. Inniverse (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Current form of article clearly demonstrates that the GNG is satisfied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:43, 27 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.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 August 31.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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, but keep List of fictional parasites. I will userfy if someone wants to make these into categories. There were a lot of !votes either way, but upon reviewing it I realized that many of the Keep votes were not particularly valid. I saw Wikipedia:I don't see why not, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:USEFUL, WP:INHERITED, WP:EFFORT, etc. The three articles are unreferenced, and seem to be indiscriminate lists and directories. The lists rely too much on original research. However, consensus seems to be to keep List of fictional parasites, as it has some references and the entries seem to have individual notability. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magic users[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating the remaining members of Category:Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can fly, and numerous other AFDs linked from those discussions, these lists are not appropriate content on Wikipedia. It seems they have corresponding categories that duplicate the functionality of this list as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while many types of reference lists are more than worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia (except where WP:DIRECTORY applies) lists of this nature are not in line with the guidelines nor should Wikipedia be including all these lists. Kind of hinting at the idea of non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. --Dripping oil (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kind of stupid, but I don't see any reason not to have this list. There is no problem with defining "fictional" and "magic" to determine the list. Borock (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand. How a list is defined is one thing. How the categories virtually duplicate through cross-categorizations is another. --Dripping oil (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having both a list and a category for the same thing is common on WP. Borock (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason not to ignore your !vote since you don't seem to provide any "keep" rationale. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of fictional parasites, no opinion on the others. The other lists are selected by ability, but the Parasites list is selected by nature, and is more like the other members of Category:Lists of fictional animals e.g. species/families of animals. I see that some of those have already survived AfD with a Keep decision, see AfD:List of fictional penguins which refers to others. It was created as a result of a Listify decision at CFD with an explicit intention that it should not be proposed for deletion. These parasites should be accessible within Category:Parasites but a list is better than a category. I acknowledge that it needs work, and suggest a Rescue. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Axem Titanium (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Axem Titanium (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Axem Titanium (talk) 06:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete magic users, telekinetic folks and superhuman speedsters; keep fictional parasites. The distinction is that there is an attempt being made to make the parasites list something more than indiscriminate. The other three are wasted opportunities that follow the boring "click on the blue link" format. Most of the superhero articles, with tables to explain that Marvel Comics and DC Comics were, indeed, comic books, got deleted during the summer. Obviously, "List of fictional characters who can move at superhuman speeds" got away because it could move so quickly. Mandsford 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seeing the other AfD the category Category:Fictional characters who use magic seems to do the job just fine. This article also fails per WP:DIRECTORY, the only way I can see this article being kept is if it were renamed to something like List of Notable fictional magic users, but then a criteria would have to be placed to see who would qualify. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find third-party sources to WP:verify notability. The focus of these lists are a topic of original research and represent an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fictional parasites should definitely be considered separately. Weak Delete on the others as directory style listings better handled by categories. I continue to be of the belief that straight lists of articles (as opposed to ordered lists or those with extensive discussion about inclusion criteria or the nature of each entry) that duplicate categories are neither necessary nor helpful but have not generally seen a consensus for such a view. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for 30 days to give time for most-interested-editors to improve with descriptions, groupings by type, etc., per a specified metric:

words per entry: >12 (copy lede in?)
Per prosesize (if it could count prose in lists) ratio of at least 40% prose size(text only)/wikitext.

or else delete especially if all listed characters are already in a category. --Lexein (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone shows signs of wanting to work on these over the next seven days, then I'd say to reconsider on whichever ones have that quality. Some do have categories, with Category:DC Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds and Category:Marvel Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds (although no category simply called "Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds"-- perhaps the Marvel ones deal with relevant social issues at superhuman speeds). Mandsford 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of fictional parasites and Delete all others. it's not that big and the fictional parasites on there have individual notability, if only someone would take the sources from the other articles and put it into this list. Plus, the gaming parasites even have reception here: http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/211647/10-most-blood-curdling-video-game-parasites/ The rest I think are on TV tropes right? So they'd be fine to delete. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all I thank nominator for notifying users kindly. Lots of AFD nominators does not bother spending time on notifying others and prefer a small AFD with a few people. [In similar manner lots of users doesn't even bother creating content/editing articles anyway]
- Wikipedia has some unique features that cannot be accomplished anywhere else. Yet, people constantly try deleting info valuable for specific users or specific needs. Lots of much more important and extensive comparison table and list based articles about comics have already been deleted. My point: Useful page/category for comic fans/researchers. Not useful to anyone else. If people put effort creating some useful/verifiable content for some readers, people may simply ignore, keep or just improve the page instead wasting time on talk page/AFD debates in long term. My point: whatever you say, the comparative article/categories are valuable and informative for comic fans and experts.
- Some general thoughts on AFDs [not current AFD]: Wikipedia policies are not clear, AFD discussions mostly based on a few or a few dozen coincidental users' opinion who happen to read via AFD tag or watchlist since most of the AFD's don't have a proper notification system. Yet there is no place users can change Wiki policies effectively as individuals. Even most of the AFD guidelines or AFD nominating steps are very vague, AFD nominating is easy with 1 button, but creating or keeping info is harder since there are various deletionist users around. Kasaalan (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be basically saying that it's WP:USEFUL to comic book enthusiasts, which is an WP:ATA. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but keep list of fictional parasites, per comments above, and because wikipedia is not a repository of eveything that exists, and these lists don't even meet WP:GNG as they aren't verifiable and problaby consist of original research. This is not true however for the parasites list and it should be treated separately from to the other three.Spatulli (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big problem is inclusion criteria, keep "parasites" as clear, others need careful thought - problem with eg telekinesis is that in some stories, characters use magic (or indistinguishable-from-magic technology) to move things around, yet our common idea of telekinesis usually involves mysterious "mental powers". It's not obvious whether magic would count. It might be possible to restrict to e.g. characters referred to as having telekinetic power in secondary literature. TheGrappler (talk) 03:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Main vote is below. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. I'm not accepting the arguments that these cross-categorizations are encyclopaedic. There are too many fictional characters in notable works who use magic for this list to reach any feasible level of completion, and for categorizing characters which meet the general notabiilty guideline, a category would arguably preferable, although I am aware that these lists were created due to the categories being deleted as overly arbitary. --Claritas § 09:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds a very reasonable argument for the magic-related lists; the "parasites" one seems rather different (it's certainly the odd one out in the batch), do you think that what you said works quite so well for them? There are certainly very many magic-using characters but I should think a list of fictional parasites is likely to be much shorter? TheGrappler (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fictional magic users, telekinesis and superhuman speeds; keep fictional parasites. The first three clearly fail WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. I don't think we can say the same about the parasite article though. SnottyWong ^communicate 16:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and make the necessary improvements. list of significant characters with a defined attribute in notable fiction is appropriate. Many of the characters on the lists are not merely significant, but notable, with Wikipedia articles about them. This is farfrom Indiscriminate: a list of magical characters (etc.) in all fiction, notable or not, would be indiscriminate. , or even a list of all characters significant or not which have appeared in notable fiction. But the double limitation here makes it justifiable. "Magical attributes" is a clear distinction, applying to almost all of the characters listed -- as is telekinesis and superhuman speeds. Parasites is unquestionably defined. If individual entries are challenged, they can be discussed in the talk pages. I point out that for almost all of this the work itself is a reliable source, and if sourcing is thought needed, an appropriate line from the work would do. (with respect to the argument about categories, lists and categories are complementary--lists have the advantage of indicating the work, which categories generally cannot, & are thus much better suited for browsing, a key function of lists.) DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument stems from saying the list-members are notable, which makes the list notable, but notability is not WP:INHERITED. Citing primary sources doesn't equate to notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - DGG isn't saying that primary sources give notability - he's mentioning primary sources only to point out that they can be used to check whether each list item possesses the defining attribute, that's all. TheGrappler (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep most, neutral on list of magic users as I'm not seeing a policy based reason to delete (unless something has changed "corresponding categories that duplicate the functionality" isn't a reason to delete as lists and categories can go hand-in-hand.. The List of fictional magic users I'd personally not mind seeing go away as it's probably non-maintainable and adding something about each character (which would make the list more useful than the category) would be really painful at this point. That's not a policy based reason to delete, but it is enough for me to stay neutral on. Hobit (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The policy-based reason is WP:NOT#IINFO, which I paraphrased in the nomination. There seems to be consensus that this is true, given the numerous AFDs I listed above. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I don't see how the list of fictional parasites belongs in this group, that something totally different. Should've been nominated separately. There is nothing wrong with these list, they helping with navigation, and being far more desirable than a category would be. Dream Focus 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that there's WP:NOHARM to these lists as a reason to keep? Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, his main argument was about navigation implications (list vs category as in WP:CLT) and then thinking about harm. "Harm" would be a sensible reason to delete, so it is valid to consider whether a page does no harm. It is really important for people to work out whether an article is doing harm, please please please don't criticize someone for taking time to think about harm implications at AFD, even if they're conclusion is that the article isn't harmful. (If someone's entire rationale is "Keep, no harm done" that's not a good rationale, and you're well within your rights to say so, but this isn't what Dream Focus has done here.) TheGrappler (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though it looks silly to me, if people have gone to all the effort to make this list, clearly it is important to some people, and should be kept.Wxidea (talk) 07:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be WP:EFFORT. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the magic and other fictional lists per DGG. I found his rationale convincing. I think that it might be necessary to impose harsher inclusion criteria on the list than he suggests, but that is feasible. TheGrappler (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC) [previous keep vote was for parasites][reply]
Keep The justification offered by Axel Titanium for deleting this is "these lists are not appropriate content on Wikipedia. It seems they have corresponding categories that duplicate the functionality of this list as well." Neither of these are reasons to delete and general references to WP:IINFO do not make them so. Numerous editors have asserted that these lists are appropriate and Axel has shot them down by referring to policy and demanded they justify why these lists should be kept. In fact it is Axel's job to justify why they should be deleted and he has not done so. filceolaire (talk) 06:52, 29 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. Tone 15:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal humiliation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self evidently pointless when we have a humiliation article. I think actually "verbal humiliation" is here being used in the sense of "verbal abuse" and we have a verbal abuse article anyway. "Verbal abuse" has about 15 times more Google hits than "verbal humiliation". Article is only a stub, is only linked to once as a See Also link from humiliation and has no citations. To compound the confusion it is set up as a DAB page.--Penbat (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly as the nominator said. We already have articles that deal with the points mentioned.--Dripping oil (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - useless dab for two issues. Bearian'sBooties 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Removed dab tag in any event, as it is not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 23 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 incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Sacred Code. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Code[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Every film has plot and characters. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM and WP:CRYSTAL with no assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct name: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Userfy as per WP:TOOSOON. My sense is that the delete !votes above might be due to an improper Find sources looking for English language sources for an unreleased Italian film. However, it is learned that under its actual name Sacro Codice this project IS getting coverage in Italian language sources,[5] but as it is still in works, and does not have enough to merit it being an exception to WP:NFF, it might be more welcoming if we return it to its author with our thanks and a suggestion he wait a bit. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails to meet any of the basic criteria for inclusion. Also, I have placed a prod tag on Jordan River (director) whose sole claim to notability is this alleged future film and an unsourced claim that he won a directing award at the age of two. I don't throw WP:HOAX around lightly but I'm leaning strongly in that direction. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article is premature, but as numerous Italian-language sources speak toward the film under its Italian title,[6] use of the word hoax seems inapplicable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy Per Schmidt. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:47, 26 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. Tone 15:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EasyUO[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Article has recieved no updates since initial creation. The article is about a piece of software which has received no media coverage, lacks sources and appears to be nothing more than advertising for the software itself. BondGamer (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Peacock (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant, reliable coverage. --Teancum (talk) 20:46, 23 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. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UGG Australia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary and POV content fork and WP:COATRACK article full of OR. I tried redirecting it to Deckers Outdoor Corporation, but was reverted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, I've "moved" the article to UGG Australia since this is the correct expression of the ~~brand~~ corporate name. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UGG brand boots, for the most recent year (2008) I've been able to find figures on, sells US$689 million a year.[7] That's an increase from US$14.5 million in 1995.[8] And I found those figures with a single Google search, in less time than it takes to type this. For such a popular brand, I think it rates its own article, particularly since the parent company, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, has a name that doesn't even resemble the name of the brand.

That's an increase of 4,652% in 13 years.

Notable? Very.

General Motors has separate articles for its Chevrolet and GMC lines. Chrysler Corporation has separate articles for its Jeep and Dodge lines. Of course feel free to nominate this article for AfD if you choose, but I am confident that it will be an enormous waste of time for everyone, that would be better spent improving articles rather than trying to delete them. Kindly read the guidelines for article deletion,[9] if you think it's got WP:NOR and WP:COATRACK problems, edit the article rather than trying to delete it. I strongly suspect that the people trying to merge/delete it have WP:COI or WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues of their own. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a great article, but a notable topic. Many more people know UGG than Deckers.Borock (talk) 21:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter how many people know something. Don't mistake content forks for seperate articles. This can easily be included in the parent article for now --neon white talk 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deckers Outdoor Corporation as suggested here and on Wikipedia:PRODUCT, 'Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy'. It isn't large so there's no reason to fork currently. --neon white talk 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neon, there's one sentence in WP:PRODUCT that you neglected to mention: "If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article." I would have to say that at US$689 million a year, 4,652% growth in 13 years, with celebrities like Sarah Jessica Parker, Oprah Winfrey, Jessica Simpson and Kate Hudson wearing them, this is an extremely notable brand. Not as notable as Gucci or Jimmy Choo, but if you're Jimmy Choo, objects in your rear view mirror may be closer than they appear. Also I will add emphasis to one word in the segment you did quote: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company ..." The magic word "generally" indicates that there are exceptions. This is one of the exceptions: a product brand that is eminently notable on its own merits. Thanks for mentioning WP:PRODUCT. It seals the deal. This article should stay. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Celebrities" and a large profit margin doesn't make something notable. You're getting dangerously close to spam now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4,652% growth in 13 years makes something notable. If you grew that much, you'd be 285 feet tall. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being 285ft tall would be a pain in the arse, but wouldn't make me notable unless it was noted by independent, reliable sources. ;) That's the principle of notability. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now why didn't I think of that?[10] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented below, but WP:PRODUCT is a very limited principle. It is not a reflection of Wikipedia practice as it applies to brands overall. Products and services, maybe, but certainly not brands of fashion, cookies, automobiles, fast food, computer software, or most anything else. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Ugg or ugg boots is such a popular term worldwide, and is even used to describe similar products from other brands (in the same way as Coke, for example). Redirecting or merging into Deckers Outdoor Corporation is likely to confuse wikipedians who just looked up Ugg boots or Ugg, and whilst I can understand User:Neon white's point, every case is different and User:Phoenix and Winslow has given several examples where the point Neon white cited has been contradicted. Even Big Mac and Quarter pounder have their own articles... and rightly so! :) IainUK talk 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg boots has its own article. WP:OTHERCRAP is an argument to avoid at AfD. Have you read the article? It's a WP:COATRACK full of some shite about some slightly related trademark dispute that may just about be notable. It contains next to no content on the term or the boots and is a borderline speedy candidate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ugg boots, if you'd care to look at the article's Talk page, is all about the generic term "ugg boots" rather than the brand "UGG." Australian editors there have been vigorously trying to evict a lot of material about the company and the brand. Please join me there, and try to convince them that there's plenty of room in that article to talk about the brand, and its trademark and counterfeiting woes. But that's a separate article about a separate, but closely related topic. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that, to a certain extent, the whole controversy has spilled over from there and this pile of POV OR is what we're left with as this article has become a dumping ground for the stuff (that I have no opinion on, FWiW) that's been evicted from the other article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above comments by Phoenix and Winslow and HJ Mitchell - Ugg boots has its own article - this article is purely a business division, and notable content should be moved to either the brand article, or the business article.IainUK talk 17:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for the Trademark controversy. —Pengo 00:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles content is already at Ugg boots. Merge anything relevant to Ugg boots and then redirect to Deckers Outdoor Corporation. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The trademark controversy and counterfeit sections exist in all 3 articles. It should be determined if they apply to the company or the product and then only exist in that article. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — in case that isn't clear from my earlier comments. Here we have several trademark disputes. World War II consisted of several battles as well. Does Wikipedia limit any comments about the war to the article about the United States of America? No, of course not. Every nation that participated in these battles has some mention of it in their articles: both the allies and the enemies of the U.S. It should be the same with these trademark disputes. Yes, World War II was a lot bigger and nastier and more expensive and bloody than this, therefore more notable. But it has spawned literally thousands of WP articles. There are over 1,000 articles on just the warships of the U.S., British and Australian navies that fought in that war — from USS Borie (an article I'm particularly proud of) to HMAS Australia (one of my personal favorites). I don't want thousands of articles about the Ugg boots trademark controversy. I only want four: Ugg boots, Uggs-N-Rugs, Deckers Outdoor Corporation, and UGG Australia. (And the sales increase of 4,652% in 13 years is pretty noteworthy on its own merits, so there's that.) Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- agree theres the potential for all four but not sure theres enough difference between the last two to yet warrant it. I believe that a redirect to the parent company is a positive education for those interested in the Brand. Gnan garra 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - this seems to be a close case. But I am an inclusionist, and I do think Uggs Australia is significantly different from Deckers Outdoor Corporation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral with a leaning towards keep, but a definate dont delete. I did the merge of a number of Deckers products into the Deckers Outdoor Corporation article after this article was previously redirectd as a povfork noting that at that time the article was edited by a sockpuppet of a decker representative. I think from what I've seen on Brand UGG Australia that there is enough sourcing to address notability for a stand alone article, but the problem is that the parent company Deckers lacks enough to make it notable beyojnd a stub, which was why in I suggested the merging of this and other products[11]. An expansion of the Deckers article would see this as a valid daughter at some stage but currently the two are too much a like to warrant the separation. Gnan garra 01:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added your name and dateline to your comment, Gnangarra; hope you don't mind. Please sign all comments using four tildes. (~~~~) Thanks. Also, please notice that I've edited the article several times this evening, substantially improving the sourcing to remove any lingering WP:NOR concerns. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified keep. This should probably be discussed in the current RfC because the viable issue here is not deletion, but rather the structure and content of a family of related articles. "Ugg" the Australian generic term, and "UGG" the international brand, are distinct matters, both clearly notable. Merging them into the same article would be impractical at this point from a WP:WEIGHT perspective, because although the brand is a more prominent and global phenomenon than the generic term, the two articles are not on par as far as length, detail, quality of sourcing, and so on. Plus it's a dubious goal - why cover two distinct but related topics in the same article? Nor should a company's various brands all be lumped into the article about the company, not if the brands are notable on their own, and viable as stand-alone articles. I can't get into the claims of COI / POV editing (which might merit its own investigation and discussion), but the Teva article ought to be unmerged or recreated with better sourcing. As a model of how fashion conglomerate articles are structured, we have a separate article for the relatively unknown parent company, Phillips-Van Heusen, and separate articles for subsidiary brands they have acquired such as Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger , and Izod. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please consider the fact that Ugg boots already has its own article - and there should be information regarding the branded UGG Boots product in there, along with any copyright or trademark disputes - this makes sense from an encyclopaedic viewpoint. Any further content regarding the business should be in the company article. To have an article for the business division 'UGG Australia' in addition to a separate article on 'UGG Boots' will confuse the average joe user like me who goes to the Ugg boots page wanting to learn about Ugg boots. I'm an inclusionist and I'm all for more articles on Wikipedia - but not duplicates which will confuse people. Cheers IainUK talk 16:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ugg boots article is about the generic boot, and so beyond a reference to the trademark dispute, it's not really appropriate to load it up with information about the Deckers brand. — e. ripley\^talk 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is funny that you mention that UGG is not as notable as Jimmy Choo, well they are getting close! [12] This is a press release that UGG Australia and Jimmy Choo will be collaborating this fall! (Hapamama (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)— Hapamama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Christian Churches[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable splinter group from the International Churches of Christ. Meaningful content is already covered in that article and at Kip McKean. The references are non-reliable and/or non-independent sources, except one (Christianity Today) which doesn't actually mention International Christian Churches. Deli nk (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable church. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 17:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there was one congregation, then maybe it would be non-notable and just a splinter group. However, over the past four years this "splinter group" has grown to 31 congregations and growing. If anything, the "meaningful content" in the International Churches of Christ article should be moved to this article because the International Churches of Christ fundamentally changed direction, which resulted in the split and formation of the International Christian Churches. BlueGold73 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does not look like a WP:NOTABLE failure at all. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. No reason to delete this article also per BlueGold73.--Dripping oil (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Pretty clearly over the notability bar. This from an article in Christianity Today, which is an independent, reliable source: "The icoc, known informally as the Boston Movement, has grown from fewer than 100 people at its founding in 1979 to 185,000 members in 430 churches and 170 countries. The ICOC has recruited intensely among college students, but more than 20 colleges or universities have barred the group from campus. In 1994 the mainline Churches of Christ officially severed ties with the icoc." This source is cited in the article: HERE. Bigger than a breadbox, and controversial to boot... Carrite (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't quite have my sectarianism down tightly here, seems like ICOC mentioned above was the source of the ICC faction which is the subject of this article. Still, it's thirty-something churches involved, I believe, and a controversial movement. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I misunderstand you, you are arguing in for the notability of the International Churches of Christ (the splinter group mentioned in Christianity Today, not the International Christian Churches (the splinter group of the splinter group) which is nominated here and not mentioned in Christianity Today. Peacock (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the article sources suggest notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. References are websites of the ICC itself, or personal websites of critics. Peacock (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but with changes) A splinter group of 31 churches is probabl;y substantial enough to be a notable denomination. However I have to question the title, which is too grand for a denomination of this size, and should probably acquire a disambiguator. I note that the lead has the name in the singlualr. Carrite cites a 1994 split, but this appears to be the result of a 2006 split. I know nothing directly of the subject, and merely comment on what I observe. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems of notable worth to me. However, the article could use more sources, and be put into categories. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Christian denomination with secondary source coverage. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please identify the secondary source coverage? None of the secondary sources currently in the article actually refer to "International Christian Churches", only to the "International Churches of Christ" which has a separate article. Peacock (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - One example would be the Christian Chronicle source that specifically mentions Kip's "recent effort to counter the International Church of Christ with a new entity called the International Christian Church." BlueGold73 (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. It's hard to keep these straight. Churches of Christ/International Churches of Christ/International Christian Church. Peacock (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to have sufficient coverage. Failing that, merge to International Churches of Christ, as their parent denomination. Jclemens (talk) 05:07, 29 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 an appropriate location (the consensus here seems to be quite in favor that, one way or the other, this topic is not an appropriate one for a full article). For the moment, the article will be redirected to List of Transformers planets. What and where to merge is left to editorial discretion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velocitron[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a fictional planet, unsourced for years, doesn't appear to have any independent notability. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this reference from List of Transformers TV series doesnt mention it, and its a reasonably good reference. Two Steps From Hell has an album with the song "Velocitron" on it, an obvious if unreferenced homage to the planet. we also have this site, making weird models, again an homage to mondo films and to the planet, just not explictly stated. search for velocitron planet transformers gets 338 ghits for pages with all 3 words, with at least the first 2 pages being wikis, etc. searching for velocitron and "new york times" shows nothing on the first few pages where the two terms are in the same page section, ie just a coincidence they are on the same page. this shows the term in use, not in reference to the planet, as early as 1948. 38 google scholar hits show this was an established scientific instrument from then. The term appears in this book. If these are the most notable uses on the internet for this word, i think we have a nonnotable article with information only relevant to the tv shows fanbase. in otherwords: Autobots!!! Transform, rollout, and delete!!!Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good research with Google Scholar, there. If this content does go away, you've made a case for a redirect to time-of-flight mass spectrometry, because those sources explain that the "velocitron" of Cameron and Eggers was later known as a time-of-flight mass spectrometer. Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you are correct, i would agree that this term is more notable in this use than as relates to the cartoon, despite it no longer being in use. once notable, always notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - See this edit. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. That's some excellent research there. Reyk _YO! 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Transformers is unquestionably notable. The standard for inclusion as a wikipedia article for elements within a notable fictional work is listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The element that is the subject of this AfD is verifiably important within the work, and the Real-world coverage of the subject (significantly demonstrated by the homage paid to this fictional planet in the song "Velocitron") also indicates that this article is eligible for inclusion. A Google search for the words “Transformers” and “ Velocitron” gives about 20,800 results. Breaking these down into “reliable sources” finds more than enough to justify inclusion (and no I am not going to list links to them all here, but just go look for yourself here. Inniverse (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clicking that link gives a list of Wikipedia mirrors and other specialist wikis. Apart from the fact they're not reliable sources, none of the articles are actually about the planet - they merely say "X character comes from the planet Velocitron". Could you show us some reliable sources about the subject? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it lists mirrors, but is also lists nearly countless other sites too. That meets the the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) when the article is about an element from a notable work of fiction. Velocitron is a prominent planet within the Transformers universe, and the numerous mentions that "X character comes from the planet Velocitron" is verification of that fact. Oh yeah, and there's also this as further evidence that "Velocitron" is sucessfully making its way into modern pop-culture. Inniverse (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, a lot of trivial mentions on random websites doesn't meet WP:FICT, which says "An element of fiction ... is presumed notable if it satisfies the general notability guideline." And the WP:GNG is fairly clear here - "...sources (should) address the subject directly in detail ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". So, as I said, where are the sources that directly address the subject? (and the link you provided is a blog). Black Kite (t) (c) 00:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nearly countless, eh? So it should be dead easy for you to cite … oh, say … three independent reliable sources documenting this subject in depth to prove the validity of your argument, then. They're easy to find, you claim. Prove it. Handwaving and not showing the what your searches turned up because "It's so easy." doesn't cut the mustard. If it is easy, no such vague handwaving would be necessary, and you could make a water-tight case with no effort.
      "X comes from Velocitron." is a (fictional) fact that can quite happily sit in an article about "X", by the way. After all, it doesn't tell us anything at all about Velocitron. Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets, where I don't see it mentioned yet. Jclemens (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Transformers planets.Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^squeal 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Transformers: Cybertron and/or List of Transformers planets. Not notable enough for its own article. WP:FANCRUFT SnottyWong ^squeal 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has been around for five years(4 years and 11 months actually). It was fine before, and its fine now. It was featured as a major location in one of the Transformer series, featured in animated episodes, and surely the comic book series as well. And a notable band named a song in its honor. Dream Focus 23:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good detailed article on a major subject. Some references, and pleanty of potential. Why throw out the baby with the bath water? Mathewignash (talk) 01:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 as wrong venue. Redirect are discussed at WP:RFD. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 15:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Camarones (localidad)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This redirect points to a disambiguation page. It was originally intended as an article currently at Camarones (Chile). It's not really a "locality" but rather a commune and town, and the use of Spanish is not appropriate for English Wiki. Ruodyssey (talk) 14:34, 22 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. Tone 15:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Llasha Urko[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Possibly misleading in assertions of importance, claims to have been nominated for the "NAAP (sic) Image Award for Outstanding Young Actress", the NAACP Image Awards website does not list such a category. Quasihuman (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, zero Google hits beyond the wiki page itself, maybe a hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article appears to be a hoax. Laurinavicius (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under CSD G3 as hoax. The nonexistence of any such award and absence of ghits seems to indicate this strongly, unless the article creator (or someone else) can offer corroboration to the contrary. - Vianello (Talk) 01:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Non-notable article. JJ98 (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Even if not a hoax, this individual has no sourcable notability and the article fails WP:BLP on all levels. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:51, 23 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. Tone 15:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis (chennai)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not another Empire State Building. I fail to see significant coverage in multiple third party reliable sources. Fails WP:N. Galactic Traveller (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no indication of notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article has not received any significant development since creation in March 2009 and only has a list of occupants and an address. No references and no assertion of importance. Fails notability, verifiability, and reliable sources. — Becksguy (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable building.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Becksguy. --WorLD8115 (TalK) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:19, 27 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) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotients of determinants[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of notability and COI. The only source is a single paper, which it's not clear if it's even been published, just "registered", so not a RS. The main page creator has the same name as the paper author, with further biographical details inserted into the article. Tags removed without reason. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unpublished original research. While the results are better than most original research on wikipedia as they are essentially correct, they are just a trivial combination of the Lagrange interpolation formula and the Vandermonde determinant. r.e.b. (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...which is our main reason for forbidding original research. Maybe? Michael Hardy (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. R.e.b. gave a good summary of the reasons. Per the nominator, appears to be a vanity page. Arcfrk (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment or confession: As soon as I hear the term "quotients of determinants", I wonder if it bears upon likelihood ratio tests involving the Wishart distribution, since those involve quotients of determinants of Wishart matrices. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Michael Hardy to one of those articles. Bearian'sBooties 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- comment that would inserting OR into one of those articles though, unless there's reliable source for it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not suggesting merger. The article doesn't appear to be about quotients of determinants in general, but only about one particular use of them. In particular, it doesn't see directly relevant to the problem I said was what I first thought of when I saw the title. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable (and trivial) application of Cramer's rule. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now I've read it enough to have a good handle on what it says. Yes, it's correct. But as Sławomir Biały says, it's the Lagrange interpolation rule plus Cramer's rule, and those are the two parts of it worth having articles about, and we do. When I hear the term "quotients of determinants", as I said above, I immediately think of likelihood ratio tests involving Wishart matrices. But those are quotients of determinants of symmetric nonnegative-definite matrices—not the same thing as these at all. So, as I also said above, that should not be taken to imply that a merger is in order. It isn't. Hence, delete. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 00:21, 26 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. Tone 15:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hero: 108 (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have nominated for deletion because I have feeling that this article may be a hoax. I have searched Google for the movie, but none related to it. I don't see no references or citations. JJ98 (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just noticed the cast list. You'd think that with a cast like that, there would be some record of this film existing, but there is not. Reach Out to the Truth 02:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON even if determined not to be a hoax. While yes, Hero: 108 is on the Cartoon Network, discussions perhaps about a movie, seem to only have minimal coverage in Chinese at this time.[13] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article's creator has created numerous other articles that have been deleted as hoaxes. With the lack of any evidence of this movie's existance, I can only assume this one is the same.Rorshacma (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indubitably a hoax. No evidence of existence, and the article's creator has created more than a dozen other hoax articles, now all deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:40, 27 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. Tone 15:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Defence[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable. No independent sources. Bleakcomb (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources that demonstrate this program is notable. Most of the hits I find relate to a video game with a similar name or this book. If someone more familiar with martial arts could find some third party sources, I might change my mind. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the organization thar gives out the degree is notable, but I don't think the degree itself is.Peacock (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found no mention of this topic on the organization's web site mentioned in the article and no independent sources that show notability. Article gives no sources. Jakejr (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks a bit like spam to me. The organisation appears to be Russian, and has an article on Википедии http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9E%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%BF%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B0_%D0%B1%D0%BE%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2 (sorry about that...) I too can't find this 'program' on the website - but as quite a lot of the site seems to be under construction (and the rest hard to understand...), this may not be surprising. Perhaps someone who knows what 'Master of Defence' looks like in Russian could look at the Russian Wikipedia link to see if it's there. Peridon (talk) 18:29, 23 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 closed as disruptive nomination by banned sockpuppets, if a non-sock wishes to renominate, they are welcome to. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Visionaries[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very few external references and little outside knowledge KatyPerryCaliforniaGurls (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Kingromance (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in at least one RS [14] and no policy based reason given for deletion. Both the AFD nominator and first commenter came here minutes after creating their accounts, so something's not quite right here. KatyPerryCaliforniaGurls has also just started an AFD for a clearly notable song.[15] --Beloved Freak 13:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment both KatyPerryCaliforniaGurls and Kingromance have just been indef blocked as socks.--Beloved Freak 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep - needs improving but there are references. Rosebud2010 (talk) 14:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Rosebud2010 also indef blocked now.--Beloved Freak 15:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as there is no valid argument for deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:34, 22 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 as wrong venue. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1948 War[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Empty and redundant page. There were many wars in 1948, none was "the" 1948 war. RolandR (talk) 13:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd be tempted to move the article that was there back to that spot, seems that "1948 War" is commonly used to refer to that conflict that was in that article. I'm not convinced the move was for the best. Canterbury Tail talk 13:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as correctly said above by user Canterbury Tail, "1948 War" is commonly used by reliable sources to refer to that conflict that was in that article. Marokwitz (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep The link now goes to 1948 Arab–Israeli War. What is the issue? --Crunch (talk) 13:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the discussion whether the article should be "1948 War" or "1948 Arab-Israeli War"? If so, this is not made clear. --Crunch (talk) 13:51, 22 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) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hirosato Noda[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a list of credits and has only one source, which is from Noda's employer company Square Enix. I can't find any information about the person himself. It does not seem to be possible to expand the article beyond credits list, with actual biographical information. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG no significant coverage in sorces that are independent of the subject. VirtualRevolution (talk) 08:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a man doing a job. Much better referencing would be needed to pass. Peridon (talk) 12:11, 23 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 Kollam#Education. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar LPS kurakkodu[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable sub-high school primary school, doing what every other primary school does. Normally these would be turned into redirects to the district. In this case, what district? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Kollam#Education. Normal practice for primary schools in countries without school districts. TerriersFan (talk) 02:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per TerriersFan. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 26 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. Needs some work, though. Tone 15:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Gallacher[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Unreferenced bio about a non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. A little more bio and a little less puff would be desirable. Carrite (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Carrite has it correctly, in that the individual has a lengthy career,[16][17] and the article and the project will benefit from cleanup and sourcing. Asserting in a nomination that someone is "non-notable" simply because the article lacks use of the many available sources,[18] would be indicative of it needing improvement through regular editing, and not deletion... and for an award-nominated individual who makes a decent dent in WP:CREATIVE, deletion is a last resort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 23 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 Deleted - CSD G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban. Codf1977 (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winslow Sargeant[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have been created purely because this was one of 4 recess appointments. I see no previous entries for people holding the position of "chief counsel of advocacy for the Small Business Administration", and don't think he meets WP:N for anything else. So creating an entry purely because he's mentioned in the news as 1 of 4 recess appointments would fall foul of WP:BLP1E. Rd232 ^talk 08:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wisconsin Technology Network does not notability make. Beyond that, the other two sparse refs are insufficient to reflect the broad coverage required to evidence notability, nor is the title "chief counsel of advocacy for the Small Business Administration" one that is automatically viewed as notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously. Nom failed to follow wp:before. The nom also looks like antagonistic retaliation for reverting his POV pushing in other articles. Freakshownerd (talk) 12:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reject that on all counts (I did a BEFORE check). With the expansion, this looks more notable, though I'll leave others to judge. Rd232 ^talk 13:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a distinguished engineer. For example, Bloomberg says "He has been named a Kauffman Fellow – Class 11 and has received the inaugural 2002 Wisconsin Distinguished Young Alumni Award and was the 2003 Outstanding Engineering Alumni Awardee from Northeastern University.". Colonel Warden (talk) 17:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Awards appear to be trivial, not nearly enough to establish notability. Same for the SBA position. A bit of a pointy article creation simply because it was an Obama recess appointment, so all we're left with is WP:BLP1E. Tarc (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

collapse irrelevant discussion not about the content

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Tarc has been stalking and harassing me and accusing me of being a sockpuppet. I created several articles on Obama's recess appointments. And this one, like the others, is about a notable figure in government and with substantial private sector accomplishments as well, as the reliable independent sources demonstrate. Several of the cited articles are about him in their entirety and the content on this subject could be expanded substantially. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both Tarc and Rd232 are hounding you? I couldn't say. But on a substantive basis, Tarc makes good points here. And only you, not he, is pointing to alleged misbehavior by you elsewhere.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What misbehavior is that exactly? Rd232 informed another editor on his talkpage that he was in fact mistaken and confused earlier today when he was edit warring against consensus, hounding me, and blocking over a content dispute in which he was deeply involved. Tarc's trolling is also well documented. Other than Tarc's assertion of bad faith, which is against policy, what point exactly do you think he made well? The subject is covered very substantially in numerous reliable independent sources for his work as a venture capitalist and with the SBA including as a recently appointed official in charge of helping direct funding assistance programs that aid economic development and company expansions as reported on in numerous business periodicals. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you misunderstand. What alleged misbehavior on your part did you point to elsewhere? You commented in this string re the accusation of your alleged socking (elsewhere). Nobody else has brought that up here.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could stop multiplying this particular drama across even more pages, particularly since F seems unable to do so in a way that is either polite or entirely accurate. Rd232 ^talk 02:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken once again Epeefleche. If you read his comment you will see that he did indeed accuse me of a misdeed in creating this article. This is one of many false, abusive and harassing accusations he has made against me. Again, I created several articles on people that were recess appointments and have created several articles on other notable administration officials. It might be better for you not to join in with the shit slinging and to stick to discussion of the notability guidelines as they apply to subjects covered very substantially in numerous reliable independent sources. Is there an indication that the sources aren't reliable? Is the coverage in articles, some of them more than one page long, about this subject inadequate? Is there some other objection? Or did you just want to attack someone who has been outspoken against your BLP violations abuse of editing priveledges elsewhere? I wonder. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read my nomination carefully, I did not accuse of you bad faith or anything. I also acknowledged subsequently that there was more to the subject than I realised, after you expanded the article showing him as founder of a sizable tech company. Let the AFD play out - focus on content. Rd232 ^talk 08:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Let's focus on the substance of this AfD. Now Freak is attacking all three !voters against the article. Just a suggestion.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least three of the commenters here are stalking my contributions and causing disruption elsewhere. But by all means let's discuss the article subject's notability. There are numerous cites to substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. So what is the problem exactly you're having? Freakshownerd (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having posted on your talk page before, it is automatically watchlisted. Today, I noticed a post from someone about you creating articles on 4 Obama recess appointees, so I followed the link here (haven't gotten around to looking for the others yet). No one is "stalking you". I hope the sock investigations start soon, cause this is so ChildofMidnight-ish here, it's surreal. Tarc (talk) 03:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Interesting. I was all set to go Delete on this as BLP1E until I saw this. That looks like not-trivial reliable coverage from well before the one event he's best known for. CW's source is also good, being balanced between historical and recent coverage. Overall, maybe just enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the tech stuff could just be documented in a more mainstream media source [I'm excluding the Bloomberg listing, it's not news], I'd lean to keep. But GNews has nothing that doesn't relate primarily to his SBA appointment. Still, it's well-documented enough to make me neutral now. Rd232 ^talk 09:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:BLP1E no indication of lasting significance. Codf1977 (talk) 14:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems that thuis is not that notavble an appointment..Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator indicated above that he is now neutral on the need for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has not withdrawn his nomination. SnottyWong ^confer 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is far too late in the game anyways for that, as there have been several delete opinions by others now. Tarc (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^confer 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Close call, but the individual is clearly not notable per WP:N. The whole recess appointment thing is WP:BLP1E. It's very unlikely that we could actually fill an article with notable information about this person. This would be a permastub article that would only serve as a glorified resume. SnottyWong ^confer 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5 - Banned user. Codf1977 (talk) 17:58, 27 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) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finalism (art)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since its creation I've made a good effort at improving the article and sourcing it, but unfortunately all of the sources I've found (mainly by using this google search) have been primary sources, press releases, or retailers selling a book written by the founder of the movement. This movement does not seem to meet the general notability guideline. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writer has linked ancient painted sculpture research from Harvard University and further additional information from out side sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFirestone (talk • contribs) 10:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references in the article do not give any independent sources for this concept. (Several of the "references" do not even mention "finalism".) The article has been written by the single-purpose account AFirestone, who may well have a conflict of interest. Searching I have found plenty of sources for the philosophical belief "finalism", but very little for the school of art of that name, and those that I have found have been almost entirely sources that are quite obviously not reliable or not independent of the subject or both. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research on ancient painted sculpture is independently done by Harvard University also the philosophical belief of "finalism" that final causes determines events. Collectively inspires 27 other artists http://www.sculpturepainted.com the copyright protects the expression of an idea (Legal Fact) which in turn makes it reliable, independent, verifiable fact. This has also been documented by a a book ISBN 978-1-877572-93-7 (Legal Fact). Conflict of interest is inferring corruption or financial benefit due to posting information which has not occurred. Wikipeadia may need to reassess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuckism and other pages if my information is to be deleted. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFirestone (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be reliable, secondary sources; your website is not sufficient, and does not demonstrate notability; I'm not sure what the relevance of Harvard University studying ancient painted sculptures is in relation to a much more modern concept of "finalism". With regards to the mention of "Stuckism", please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your statement notability please look at http://www.sculpturepainted.com/news.html and http://www.sculpturepainted.com/news1.html with numerous articles and exhibitions that we have done. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.180.102 (talk) 11:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:N for what indicates notability on wikipedia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable articles have been done please see above news links. To earlier statement the study of ancient painted sculpture is one of the pillars of the art movement that inspires the 27 artists. Information is within the General notability guideline's. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.180.102 (talk) 12:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the "This article has multiple issues" so I can improve on the page. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.180.102 (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and • Gene93k who have outlined clear reasons for deletion. This fails WP:N and is orignal research. freshacconci talktalk 18:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree with you and can see that Finalism does fit in the WP:N. I think it fits well into the occasional exceptions. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFirestone (talk • contribs) 06:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orignal research please see http://www.sculpturepainted.com/writings.html If I could get past these issues I could spend the time improving the page. AFirestone — AFirestone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You keep posting that link and all it illustrates is how this is original research. Your own website is not a source, it is not independent of you. Please read WP:RS. freshacconci talktalk 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT EVER MAN, DELETE IT IF YOU WANT TO. AFirestone —Preceding unsigned comment added by AFirestone (talk • contribs) 23:45, 25 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) 00:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

24th Transportation Battalion (United States)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination is the result of a Proposed Deletion tag being removed by User:Inniverse. In accordance with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/436th Transportation Battalion (United States), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/14th Transportation Battalion (United States), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/27th Transportation Center (United States) these type of units are not notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete Per NOM and an additional AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/497th Transportation Company.

Conditional delete: again, do these participation credits mean there was any actual fighting, or was this just another support unit nearby? The article needs some sources to make that clear before I can change my vote. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this search produces some hits: [19], but they seem like passing mentions to me and probably not enough to write an encyclopedic article from. I am happy to change my mind if others can demonstrate sufficient depth of coverage, though, of course. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:29, 23 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. Tone 15:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeopodiatry[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a case of spam, there are sources for this "Palaeopodiatry" out there but none seem to meet WP:RS. Marcusmax(speak) 03:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Call it a dictionary definition or a Non Notable Neologism.... Carrite (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like spam to me. Truthsort (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on Google news or Google Books, one minor hit on Google Scholar. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's spam in its current form, but is the topic notable? I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate that it is. It's used around the blogosphere a bit, but it doesn't seem to be in wide-spread (or any) use in reliable sources.P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:22, 22 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per discussion at Talk:2010 in country music, there doesn't seem to be any sort of archive for these charts although they're published by Billboard. A thorough search by several editors has failed to turn up a reliable archive of these charts. Furthermore, the CAN Country charts are being removed (as they should be!) due to lack of verification. Note that there are a couple sources here, but apparently the source being used has not updated since May, meaning that all other positions present are in violation of WP:OR. Delete unless a reliable chart archive is found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is content in this article that is in violation of WP:VERIFY which needs to be removed at the very least. The beginning is sourced, but what good is this article being only half complete. Nowyouseeme talk2me 04:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this is a legitimate chart. And if this information isn't available elsewhere, I think thats even more reason for it to stay. If I want to know a peak on the CAN country chart, I would look here first and foremost. The editor(s) who've maintained the chart over the year do the same process with the U.S. chart and are trustable. CloversMallRat (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least the earlier items There does not necessarily need to be an archive, nor does anything have to be available online, for information to be verifiable. However, there must be something published, somehow, maybe separately for each item, for verifiability. If I understand right the Canadian number one country hits were (are?) emailed out each week and, until May 2010, were archived by Billboard (and cited in the article). The article starts in 2010 so previous years are irrelevant. So, the article hits referenced are fine and the article need not be deleted. I think the later hits must have references (since they seem to be being challenged) but I do not understand from the discussion how anyone knows what they are (email, radio programs?). Whether such "publications" could be counted as "reliable", I am not sure. Thincat (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I completely agree with Nowyouseeme. It violates WP:VERIFY and there is no point in having it when barely half of the artilce is sourced. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator about lack of verification.--Dripping oil (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the entries for which there are no references and I have also removed the last citation which I found to be broken. Here is the article when it was nominated at AFD[20] and here it is after my edits[21]. To my mind the article does not now violate WP:OR or WP:V although clearly things are in a rather unsatisfactory state both now and, I am told, for the future. As I said above, I believe the article in this form does not qualify for deletion. Thincat (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But even then, you are relying heavily upon a single source. As WP:ONESOURCE says, a subject for which only one source can be cited is unlikely to merit a standalone article. --Dripping oil (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think that is going to cut it, the page is called List of number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada), not Less than half of the number-one country hits of 2010 (Canada). Nowyouseeme talk2me 21:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And also, one source alone generally isn't enough for Wikipedia standards especially when it's the self-publisher that you are referencing no matter how reliable the source may be.--Dripping oil (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to both: It looks as if a large number of chart hit listings articles depend on a single source (and WP:ONESOURCE is just an essay), but your point is perfectly valid. A poorly named article should be moved, not deleted. Articles and lists are not required to be comprehensive. My own feeling is that the best angle for deletion is to claim lack of notability. Thincat (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, I know it's not a set in stone policy but it just common sense. The original issue still applies the same however.--Dripping oil (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per discussion.--Caravan train (talk) 19:03, 27 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. Tone 15:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Cops and Robbers[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-notable work of fiction by a non-notable author, I can't find any sources over then a few sites selling the book. Marcusmax(speak) 03:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Truthsort (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable book with no coverage in any source I can find. Also note that per Google Books listing of the book the publisher is Create Space which is a self-publishing firm. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find sources that satisfy WP:BK. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia includes books that are NOTABLE such as To Kill A Mockingbird which was an award-winning best-seller that was made into a famous movie. Beyond cops and robbbers on the other hand is barely more notable than a random issue of a weekly magazine.--Dripping oil (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like spam to me. The article reads like a self-produced 'review' for one of those supply your own sites. Self-published via CreateSpace and not much in the way of reliable sources. No notability shown, none found - and I can't see much for the future (but that doesn't come into the remit of this discussion). Peridon (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per dicussion, Sadads (talk) 16:49, 23 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. Tone 15:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arty and the Fox[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The author appears notable, the book, not so much. I couldn't find anything in the way of Reliable Sources, and it seems extremely doubtful this meets WP:N Marcusmax(speak) 03:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NB, no 3rd party coverage CTJF83 chat 20:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments, Sadads (talk) 16:48, 23 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 Nomination withdrawn. Procedural close (NAC) per nominator's withdrawal statement below nomination. — Becksguy (talk) 01:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Modern didgeridoo designs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Completely superfluous page. What little is of value (very little I may add) can be safely transferred to the article on didgeridoo after this laughable attempt at "information" is deleted.~~ Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a problem when you are in the middle of doing something and someone comes along and thinks that's it. I was in the middle of a process when you came along with an AfD tag. Have another look at the Didgeridoo article and discussion page, and then look at the Modern didgeridoo designs article. You will get where I am going with this. The modern didgeridoo innovation section in the previous Didgeridoo article has now been merged into the Modern didgeridoo design article. Musicologists (Wade-Matthews, M., Thompson, W., The Encyclopedia of Music, 2004, pp184-185. ISBN 0 760 76243 0) consider authentic didgeridoos to be made from Eucalyptus logs hollowed out by termites. It's recognized that these modern didgeridoos are quite distinct from traditional didgeridoos, and we should reflect that distinction in our articles. As much as a Cornu is distinct from a French Horn. John Moss (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article was started less than 20 hours before being sent to AfD and looked like this when tagged. It had references and was about half the size it is now. The references appear to be high quality ones. I strongly support the author's assertion that he was developing the article, and I ask that the nominator consider rescinding his nomination based on the state the article is in now. — Becksguy (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has potential, give it a chance. There are good reasons to separate this topic from the article about traditional didgeridoos, as discussed at Talk:didgeridoo. Graham87 15:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a premature nom for an article with potential. It has sources, and, it was created as a result of these three AfDs I just closed yesterday: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Didgebox, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral didgeridoo, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travel didgeridoo. Please also read Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Spiral didgeridoo in why these didgeridoos are different from traditional ones and should have their own article. —fetch ·comms 19:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everybody for input. I'm just going to keep chasing references to build this article up. I think consolidating the modern didgeridoos into one article is a neat and technical solution. There is a plethora of didgeridoo innovations, but I agree that we need the reliable reference material to support their inclusion in Wiki. The sliding didgeridoos and travel didgeridoos now have adequate reliable third party references for inclusion, but I'll have to chase references for other types that I picked up from the merger from the main didgeridoo article or delete their inclusion in this article. So it's turning out to be much tighter referencing. If anyone wants to help please don't hold back. All good. Thank you once again! John Moss (talk) 00:23, 23 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. Procedural keep, the consensus is not for deletion. A merge or else is possible later. Tone 21:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britain's role in the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A vastly unnecessary article. The main article of War in Afghanistan is more than enough to cover the topic. Nothing links here, and simply directs the reader to further information. Jmlk 1 7 02:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is very hard for me to believe that there aren't many sources with substantial coverage of British involvement in the war. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable, and very important, as it is often mentioned in the news. I am sure books will be written about it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International Security Assistance Force. It is an important topic but it is best covered in the context of the International Security Assistance Force article. --Crunch (talk) 04:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either ISAF, or Operation Veritas and Operation Herrick. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the content is merged should this article title become a redirect? I feel that a user searching for this topic would have a difficult time getting the right search terms together to locate the ISAF article, let alone the correct section.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either ISAF, or Operation Veritas and Operation Herrick. I was going to vote keep, nut then I saw the articel. This is little more then an intro to an artciel.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Operation Veritas and Operation Herrick here instead. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 23 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. Tone 15:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Moonies (Australian band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no notability shown for this band. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. prod removed duffbeerforme (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to be notable, from lack of sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 05:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 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) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crewe Licensed Houses Pool League[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

By most standards, minor. WP:TOWN seems to be the advice (although not policy) here. Despite local sources, this is just a list of otherwise non-notable individuals and arguably outside the scope of what we should be doing here. Rodhull andemu 01:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real coverage CTJF83 chat 20:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 23 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. Tone 15:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trent Christopher Ganino[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails Wikipedia:1E as only source of notability is writing a single episode of one television series. Ithizar (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for creative professionals. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely fails WP:CREATIVE. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above CTJF83 chat 20:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while being loved over at Memory Alpha Wikia,[22] he does not have enough to merit inclusion at en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:19, 23 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantasy hair styling[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research by synthesis: You can't just write an article by compiling random examples of unconventional hairstyles and call that "fantasy hairstyling", unless reliable sources have already done so. The article does not cite, and I cannot find, a reliable source covering the topic of "fantasy hair styling" (or similar). Note the absence of any relevant results in Google Books, where three hits seem to be in books that are Wikipedia article compilations. See also the similar case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiky (hairstyle). Sandstein 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We need to follow, not lead, the sources. -John (talk) 02:51, 17 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John; clear synthesis here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:58, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German American National Political Action Committee[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable advocacy organization consisting of one man (Hans Schmidt).LoveUxoxo (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I think it's worth keeping as it seems to be an organisation which uses holocaust denial to meet its ends, which would make it notable. If it was kept, it would have to be expanded to note this point, and verify it was true. Its seems also that Hans Schmidt who founded the organization is a well known holocaust denier. I think the article needs expanded, as well as an article about Hans Schmidt being created. scope_creep (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much of the coverage in Google News is behind pay walls, but [23], [24], [25] indicate that there is coverage about the organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 17 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNeeds a lot of work, but ther does seem to be notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon David[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure he meets notability criteria. Chris (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO completely. I can't find a single ghit. Could be a hoax. No sources whatsoever. scope_creep (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 16 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Reads like a vanity article; created by user JonPutt, for what it's worth... No demonstration of notability. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find a single independent source anywhere about an artist named Jon David. --Crunch (talk) 05:36, 22 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Miller Hair System[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly non-notable. Fullmetal2887 ^{(discuss me)} 05:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except for very extraordinary cases, one episode of a TV show is not going to be notable.Wolfview (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Larry Miller Hair System is my favorite episode of ATHF. --Therabbot (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then don't let this article spoil the plot and jokes for people who haven't seen it yet. These kind of articles do no good for the shows themselves or for potential viewers. (I am WP:Assume good faithing and assuming your vote is not a joke, although it might well be.) Wolfview (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks independent reliable sources to attest to its notability. Fails WP:GNG. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. JJ98 (talk) 02:00, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable...and no "real" keep !vote after inital 7 days. CTJF83 chat 20:53, 22 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) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We Are All Brooklyn[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wongs.jcrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable coalition of companies. Article is unsourced. No significant coverage or any indication it passes WP:ORG. SPA creator who also created the related and non-notable CAUSE-NY. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, and no one has come forward to it's defense. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:24, 18 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Pop[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources given aren't verifiable. The "History of Barbados" doesn't included the phrase "rebel pop" in it according to Google book search. I couldn't find any sources in a google search. I can't tell that any of this is accurate or notable. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 16 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) 00:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G3) - Sources are suspect, independent searches do not support notability (google would show something related searching for "rebel pop" and Barbados if notable). The author names on the references scream hoax (e.g., 4th ref, by J.Kidding,as does the sentence it "supports"). Novaseminary (talk) 04:19, 29 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. Tone 21:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Records Ukraine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined prod, the original prod reasoning was over concerns of notability. Declining editor made claims of notability but no sources have been added, and I can't find any that prove the labels notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. A label that has the best known bands of Ukraine is surely notable. It's in fact just to name Okean Elzy and that is enough. Please learn something about music in the CIS countries and you will understand. Should we also delete Mercury Records who has U2? The article surely is just a stub, but that's not a reason for deleting it. Närking (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 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) 00:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Narking and assertion that it's the largest record company in Ukraine. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:15, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Leadership Council[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - sub-organization of a university multicultural support group. No independent reliable sources indicate separate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Disputed PROD. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete - The organization is reputable in that it is the largest organization of the Multicultural Information Center. It's age and purpose seems enough to create notability, as well as its affiliation with UT Austin 32.169.77.77 (talk) 18:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

There need to be reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the LLC. Its affiliation with UTA or with the MIC (itself not independently notable IMHO) do not establish the notability of the LLC. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one possible source about their recent activities. I think this might be best merged to the parent organization, with most of the detailed "advertisement" removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article for the parent group is also up for deletion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - The organization has "enduring notability", in that it is an organization that is, in it of itself, important. It is UT Austin's official Latino social rights organization. The article, again, may be a bit bloated, but the organization is enduringly important because of what it is. Certainly Wikipedia has a policy for this - the official Latino rights organization of a University must have some sort of protection for notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.23.207 (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the general notability guideline there needs to be significant coverage in reliable sources. "Notability" does not equal "importance" so the group's status on campus is not relevant to the discussion. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:07, 21 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) 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a Redirect to Multicultural Information Center where it's covered would be fine. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into University of Texas at Austin. Or Merge into Multicultural Information Center (currently a separate AfD) and merge them both into University of Texas at Austin --Crunch (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No significant coverage. Lionel (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no coverage outside of UT-related sources. Notability per WP:ORG not established. Also, now that Multicultural Information Center has been deleted, the redirect/merge proposals are moot. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:59, 29 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) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Hodge (Jackass actress)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress with just a cameo appearance in a film, music video, television show, and magazine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:39, 22 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amel bouchoucha[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Amel Bouchoucha finished tenth in the fifth series of Star Academy Arab World, but she does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines beyond that appearance. Rje (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both above. CTJF83 chat 20:54, 22 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson Knight[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any sources mentioning this horse, and it doesn't have any any refs, so its notability must be questioned. —ems 2 4 22:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added two inline citations, although their reliability is somewhat questionable. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 05:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems borderline notable with the addition of Guoguo's refs, as compared with other race horses listed in the same category. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:55, 11 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) 00:01, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Milkweed Latex Gasoline[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original request for deletion was placed on the WP:Energy talk page saying "Found this page Milkweed Latex Gasoline while on 'new page patrol'. Very poorly written, with little clear info and a sketchy reference. Before I spend any more time trying to improve it, could I get some input on how to proceed? There is a good page on milkweed Asclepias that only says that no commericial use for milkweed as a fuel as of yet. Don't want to delete something that might actually need a page, and don't have the knowledge to make the decision. I can work on it, if people think it's worth it. Please let me know. thnx. Nihola (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

Another editor added ":Delete Given that the creator of the page hasn't given any reason at all why Milkweed Latex Gasoline is notable, nor any evidence that it actually exists, why should the page exist at all? Ernestfax^Talk 07:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC))"[reply]

I personally also think that in its current stage the deletion and, if necessary, expansion of Asclepias articles would be the best solution. Beagel (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 9 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) 00:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article itself is atrociously written, but the contents are essentially correct. Euphorbia is a know biofuel source, and is listed in numerous primary and secondary sources detailing it's specific use as a potential biofuel for the future. The article really needs expanded and linked into renewable energy, biofuel articles. scope_creep (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree that Euphorbia could be used as biofuel source and definitely this should be added into the relevant article. However, there is no such thing as 'Milkweed Latex Gasoline'. There is no even search results for this name except Wikipedia and its derivatives. Beagel (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of notability, or even of existence, of the topic. If Euphorbia is a known biofuel source that information could be added there, or at Asclepias (it's not clear which is being referred to). No need to merge - this is so badly written that it's difficult to see anything here that's of use.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:27, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge to Euphorbia as there's debate about this terminology and sucject can be covered in the main article. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G1, patent nonsense. Calvin, a 20th century biochemist who discovered the Calvin cycle isn't the discover of Euphorbia (a genus first described by Linnaeus). Milkweeds aren't in the genus Euphorbia or in the Euphorbiaceae at all. It's a string of random nonsense. Guettarda (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC) No longer gibberish - Guettarda (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Poorly titled and written but has some basis in fact.[26]. Melburnian (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read a few articles, moved it to an appropriate page name, removed all of the content, wrote a brief paragraph. It's now an article. It wasn't. If someone had asked the plant project earlier it might have saved 14 days of air space for this nonsense and its discussion. Done. {{subst:4tilde}} (<- This was User:JaRoad)

~~delete~~ - Who is ever going to search or find this article or the one called Hydrocarbon plant? The info should be merged into latex and Euphorbiaceae as Guettarda recommends. Hardyplants (talk)

Changing to Keep I added a source that can be used to fill out a satisfactory start to the article; it covers problems, history and future development issues that need to be addressed. Hardyplants (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move: It seems the standard term is "Hydrocarbon-producing plant" (from Melburnian's reference above, and the reference in the article). The concept seems distinct enough that it doesn't really belong just in Euphorbia, or Asclepias, or latex. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving any content to biofuels or alternative fuels? If the topic develops enough a break-out page can be made, but at the moment I can't see more than a paragraph or two plus maybe a list of potential species. There is also a

Energy crop article. Hardyplants (talk) 12:24, 23 ::August 2010 (UTC)

Puttting it in energy crop would require rewriting that article' entire introduction and reorienting in a way that the term "energy crop" is not usually ujse. I don't know a lot about it, though, and it seems hydrocarbon produucing plants deserve a mention. These plants are unique because of why they are used, namely exploitation of their terpenoid pathways, research engaged in heavily by Calciv, the king of plant pathways. Whatever the name, it can stand alone, but would require an off-topic section in most other articles, by the way, you can also get fuel by exploiting the terpenoid pathway's products to create gasoline. I'll write this article, but I won't add it to another, because it would require an entire other level of research to put it into context, whereas this is an interesting, discrete topic, coupled with a very famous scientist, one of the most famous inm the world. That's all I have to say, as I would have rather spent thhis time writing an article. JaRoad (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having stubs isn't a problem. A look down the biofuels page reveals plenty of specific methods with their own articles. In fact, this might have enough overlap with one of those, such as Green diesel or Vegetable oil refining, to be merged. (The whole area is a bit of a thicket: I think there's some duplication between trade names (e.g. Green crude) and generic terms.) If not, I think it should have its own article. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Biogasoline is another potentially similar topic. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 00:37, 24 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GG Bond[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is filled with false and unneeded information, and the topic is not notable or widely known. BenderRobot (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominated for the 2009 "Best Domestic Animation" at Shanghai TV Festival. Winner of the 2009 KAKU Annual "Best Animated Series" as reported by Beijing Review. GG Bond character listed as one of China’s "Top 10 Animation Characters" of 2010 by China Toy Trade. We need Chinese-reading Wikipedians to translate sources found through a nominal search. Style and sourcing can then be addressed through regular editing. Being unknown in the West means nothing if can be determined as notable to a nation of billions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 12 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) 00:00, 15 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mr. Schmidt. Clean up as necessary if there are inaccuracies. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:21, 22 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 "keep" !votes are based on WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:INHERITED. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual XXXXX![edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced; fails WP:NALBUMS; contested PROD — $Jeff G. ツ$ 17:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't find a "reliable source", but the album seems to be known, even on Latin America. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asked 10 Pound Hammer to strike this. Me lazee :-p Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are you kidding me, Diego? If you can't find a reliable source then it's not notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - All the other albums have articles associated with them, why not this one? The album is well know, as is the artist. I notice that some, if indeed all the discography don't have sources. I see no reason not to keep it. scope_creep (talk) 23:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 03:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable band=notable album. --Closedmouth (talk) 05:56, 20 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) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any place other than the BuckTickZone website that shows this album. The only thing that's there is track listings, so there really doesn't seem to be a point in having a separate article for the album. I suspect that may be the case for most, if not all, of their records. HubcapD (talk) 21:42, 27 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) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Epstein[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable faux intellectual whose article is a mere stub. There is not even a slight chance for this article to be anything more than a stub given Wikipedia's guidelines and criteria for inclusion. Laval (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein has written for high-profile profile publications including The Wall Street Journal, FOX News, Baltimore Chronicle, but the only thing approaching secondary coverage I came across was this interview. Unless reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of Epstein emerge, it would be best to merge/redirect this to Ayn Rand Institute (I don't see any case for deletion, per se). Skomorokh 14:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No comments on his status as an "intellectual", although if this article is kept, that bit will need to be removed as POV. He's a young, published writer. As such, his only notability is through his writing which does not satisfy WP:N. There are no third-party sources to speak of, save for what Skomorokh points out above, and he fails WP:ACADEMIC if we are to look at him as an "intellectual". This is a fluff piece written to raise his profile: not a reason for deletion per se, but to edit the article properly in order to remove the fluff would leave very little to work with. freshacconci talktalk 12:37, 26 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) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freakbike Militia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More like a spam article than a encyclopaedic article what this supposed to be, plus apart from one link to a reliable third party source that no longer exists there is no other reliable third party sources to support its notability. Donnie Park (talk) 17:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 16 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) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability at this point. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:22, 22 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) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alcon Servicios Aereos, S.A. de C.V.[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Just because it existed does not make it WP:Notable. Directories and pictures do not establish notability. Google search does not show anything other than directory, forum and blog sites. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 16 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) 00:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References given include a forum and a database. I don't see that these establish notability. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:06, 26 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) 04:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Ronald Grossman[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hidden gecko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable author. Spam piece. Virtually all 45 refs are self-references. Many go to his website where we can buy his books. Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Created by SPA now stopped editing. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yworo (talk) 03:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

could you possibly tell me what else this article would need to give it notability? All his books have been published by reputable publishers, He is mentioned in the first paragraph of the Wildside press article. None of the reviews are self published, the references that go back to his pages were just convenient because they provide the actual bibliographic data on each review. and he has edited and co-edited books at Avon, a major publisher. I'm sure I could find a few more news articles on the Red Sox Fan Handbook since that is one of his more notable titles. I've added a little bit more today but a little bit more feedback would be appreciated. (Hidden gecko (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've added in a newstimes.com piece on his Red sox handbook, a reputable secondary source, an interview with redsoxnation.net, and a link to his guide to publishing, which is frequented by publishing industry professionals. In addition I've found a few reviews of his books by third parties. He's also currently writing/compiling a thorough Science Fiction anthology textbook in the vein of a Norton anthology but I can't include that yet because I don't have permission from him to. (Hidden gecko (talk) 03:43, 19 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) 00:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO and the article is very spammy. scope_creep (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He passes #3 using WP:CREATIVE and #2 of WP:BIO based on the books he has edited using Ref 24 on the page you can see he has edited annotated versions of Frankenstein, H.P. Lovecraft, and Dracula to name a few. I also included a link to http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/Fond-memories-inspire-The-Red-Sox-Handbook-239484.php a reputable secondary source about his Red Sox Novel. He was also interviewed by David Laurila http://www.maplestreetpress.com/authors.cfm?author_id=9 a well published Journalist/Author from Baseball Prospectus. I also removed all the links to his reviews since their are redundant to the single link I provided earlier on with the list of reviews he has done. (Hidden gecko (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't see any evidence of his having received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Freakshownerd (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Fails WP:AUTHOR. Fails general notability guidelines. Just because he has published things or co-edited things does not make him notable. --Crunch (talk) 15:35, 22 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. Tone 15:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meg Thalken[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Housewatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable American actress. Best known for playing a supporting character in ER (TV series). No major roles it seems. Fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This improvable article of a working actress who's career that has grown just as has any other actor's. In Television:... She plays a named character in 7 episodes of ER, a named character in 2 episodes of EZ Streets, a named character in 1 episode each of Chicago Hope, Early Edition, The Untouchables, Jack and Mike, and Chicago Story... and yes, these are preceded by minor descriptive roles in 1 episode each of What About Joan, Turks (TV seires), and Through Naked Eyes (film). In Film: She played a named character in Check Please , Hannah Free (film), and Poltergeist III.... and yes, these are preceded by minor descriptive roles in Class, The Babe, A Family Thing, and U.S. Marshals. Seems that just as all actors, her career begins with the minor roles and builds to the more significant. What the article inexplicably fails to share is that Thalken also has positive critical reception of her work in theater... and the article should be expanded accordingly to include it and the many sources available toward her notability.[27] Her overall body of work in television, film, and stage meets WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:39, 17 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) 00:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Character actress who has been around for a long time. Clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a long resume of work that clearly meets WP:ENTERTAINER --Crunch (talk) 05:22, 22 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) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civil Coping Mechanisms[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. Article is for a publisher; article's refs link only to publisher's website and site of a company article says publisher is in business with. 47 non-duplicate ghits are mostly simple listings of books or mentions by the company's authors; no 3rd person coverage of company found. Article created under user name similar to name of co-founder of company; same user has been primary editor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC) Added note - article creator is concerned about whether the page could be recreated should the publisher achieve notability. I assured him that was not likely to be a problem. Toward that end, I'm specifically requesting that the pag not be salted (not that it was likely to be anyway.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 16 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) 00:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The article cites no secondary reliable sources and a Google search returns none. Because this article violates Wikipedia:Verifiability and the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 04:59, 28 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 85.211.126.241 (talk) 22:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Cottrez[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a sad and tragic case, and a sensational case, but it is material for a newspaper, not for an encyclopedia. It will no doubt be argued that it must be notable because it has been in all the papers, but that does not follow: the GNG itself says:

...significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.

This is such a case: per WP:NOT#NEWS, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This is more suitable for Wikinews: I would propose a transwiki, but unfortunately license incompatibility means that is not possible. JohnCD (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 16:54, 8 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) 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The women is a self confessed serial killer, clearly notable. How famous, or rather infamous does a person need to be, to be included in Wikipedia? The women is a child killer. This article needs cleaned, wikified and linked into other articles of the same ilk. scope_creep (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the face, it's a standard WP:NOTNEWS case - onetime event about lady who killed her 8 children, but the gravity of it makes it an edge case; or does it? Serial killers are fairly common, there really isn't any thing that unusual that I can see, I could be wrong though. Ryan Norton 08:27, 16 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) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the problem of having newsworthy events written up as articles immediately. If we dont write it, it looks silly if its notable, and if we write it and its obviously a news cycle filler, it doesnt belong here and makes us look unprofessional. i get that. but she killed 8 of her own children. Hello? I think it is safe to say that there WILL be hundreds of news articles, many books, endless commentary, and her image in every book on serial killers/mass murderers starting within a year. Serial killers are NOT that common. its just that with 7 billion people, we have a larger number each year. even more uncommon are females, and more so than that, females who kill their child, and even more so, females who kill most or all of their children, and even more notable, such females with 8 or more children. I wish people would stop invoking "one event" as if being known only for one event means someone is not notable. would lee harvey oswald have had an article on WP in 1962? no, but his doings in 62 are sure notable now. She is notable for one event, but that one event is highly notable. we wont know how notable she is for other parts of her life until the biographers have written them. i would suggest a rename to something like Dominique Cottrez murders if people dont want her as the subject, but that may seem contrived.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment wasn't really a !vote either way; you have some good points. I was kind of trying to think of an alternative to keeping a pure bio article, but I don't see one; as you mention would be awkward to call it "Dominique Cottrez massacre" or something. At that point it is an editorial matter I suppose though... Ryan Norton 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as #Mercurywoodrose above, I get the difficulty of separating "ephemerally prominent" from "permanently noteworthy", and that that's not always easy without the perspective of time. But is there really much doubt about this one? Eight of her own children? The Fritzl article is under Fritzl case - how about Dominique Cottrez case? HeartofaDog (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above; I like HeartofaDog's suggestion for the pagename as well. Ryan Norton 19:25, 22 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.