Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 3

< 2 August	4 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. No policy based keep votes and the consensus is that this is unsourced Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Unified Kernel[edit]

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

Article depends on majority of sources that lead to the project page. This is a variant of Wine thrown into the Linux kernel pretty much. ☭FryPod 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nope. LUK is a pretty standard kernel development tree. In fact the longevity of the article suggests as much, and it's hardly a primary source article. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ into Linux kernel which currently does not even mention this version. There's a book about this but the lack of significant references in other sources indicate that this lacks sufficient notability to stand by itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shadowjams above. -Welhaven (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - David Gerard (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since when were "a pretty standard kernel development tree" and "the longevity of the article" reasons for having an article? No mainstream reliable sources have been presented, and the book mentioned by Colonel Warden is from VDM Publishing, whose business model is based on not doing any editorial review. It seems that many editors have a much lower standard of notability when it comes to articles about techno-geekery than about subjects that concern the vast majority of our target audience. This may be an encyclopedia mostly written by nerds, but it is not an encyclopedia for nerds. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that book looked fishy - thanks for clarifying that point. My impression is that the prejudice being displayed here is to favor open source topics. This is insufficient given the clear lack of independent sources and so I agree that we should Delete this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note The nominator of this AFD has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of banned user Pickbothmanlol. –MuZemike 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- LUK is not another Wine or anther Reactos. The technique of LUK is different from the one of Wine although LUK utilize lots codes of Reactos and Wine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.65.55.199 (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources, and IIRC that's the main issue of notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very hard to add anything beyond what Phil Bridger has said, so I won't. The keep arguments here seem to make a case for inherent notability but I'm far from convinced.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Granted, the article itself needs sources. A quick google search, however, indicated the site had been covered in a number of reputable news sites, so I think it meets the criteria. ffm is now L Faraone 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Why?- The article had existed three years ago, it is deleted today. Sad, But what is the exact reason you resolve to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.21.48.196 (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The article is archived here: http://www.thefullwiki.org/Linux_Unified_Kernel and I have an extra copy myself, if it should be lost again. Another thing to keep in mind, is that the official website has made a link to the article, which could mean that there is a kind of coverage on the the sources. --PowerPatrick (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the archive of the Linux Unified Kernel article by the way. 75.41.102.26 (talk) 08:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This is a great example of the valuable model used by Wikipedia and MediaWiki. The information provided was hardly useful - at best it mirrored information which ought to be available from the developer itself. It wasn't just someone's opinion that the article wasn't notable or was poorly formed: consensus was that the article was mostly unsourced and the few keep votes there were did not produce a compelling argument. This was not notable - due to the open nature of the Linux kernel, branches thereof are a dime a dozen and this one in particular adds little compared to any other kernel + regular user-space Wine. And no, the official website linking to the article does not constitute a "kind of coverage on the sources". It just means that the developers decided that linking to their own Wikipedia article made them noteworthy or special enough to advertise that on their main page. What they do on their own webspace certainly has nothing to do with what Wikipedia does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.6.122 (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2011 (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 delete. No obection to recreating a redirect if anyone really wants to, but nothing in mainspace links to this article. Courcelles 04:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toad Kart[edit]

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

poorly referenced. little indication of notability. Marcus Qwertyus 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to lack of sourcing and lack of notability. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references are primary or open wikis. Doesn't cut it for notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find references for the subject, fails to meet WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mario Kart. It's a well-written article, but for starters, I find no proof that that's even the name of the vehicle (if it has a name at all). And as far as sources, well, Hammer hit the nail on the head (pun intended). Speaking of the kart, I don't even think {{Mario Kart racing vehicle}} is a notable template, so I'm going to nominate it for deletion. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:03, 4 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) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and similar articles to a List of Mario Kart series vehicles. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think any kart in the series would be independently notable. This one certainly isn't. Reach Out to the Truth 16:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - viable search term, but not independently notable. Marasmusine (talk) 13:03, 7 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring segments on The Soup[edit]

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

Delete - the notability of the series doesn't confer notability on individual segments. A similar list for Tosh.0 segments was deleted not too long ago and the same deletion reasons apply here as there. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I was unable to find any reliable sources regarding the individual segments. Unless some can be found, the article does not meet the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No. I like the show too, but we can't fork off every sub-show of every cable show. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 4 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. Courcelles 04:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Wallace[edit]

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

The notability of the subject, and the verifiability of the sources, has been repeatedly questioned. I am bringing this to AfD with the hope that a consensus will be reached on whether this article should stay or go. Inniverse (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because she's hot Delete The sources are a student newspaper, a primary source, and a site tagged as possibly unreliable. Searches turned up no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Former porn star turned promoter. Based upon the sources in the article, and the lack of any coverage by non-genre sources, this one will likley be deleted. Does anyhone know whether or not the archived Eros source in the article[1] might be an online version of the Eros magazine published by Ralph Ginzburg? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that coverage by student newspapers are probably not enough to establish notability. Neither is the Eros website, which is a promotional site for escorts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:14, 6 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. finding any clear consensus here is ... well not possible. Suggest that specific sources need to be found in the next month or so as the next nomination will most likely lead to deletion if it still lacks detailed sourcing Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Road to... (Family Guy)[edit]

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

Delete - article is premised entirely on original research. The episodes have not been the subject of critical or scholarly attention as a subset of the Family Guy series. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and Comment I wrote a very long "Delete" non-vote, but wiped and erased it as I'm now looking at the (featured) article Treehouse of Horror (series), which I would imagine is the template (and possibly precedent) for this Family Guy group of episodes. The citations in the Simpsons article are similar to this AfD's choices (e.g. IGN reviews of episodes). Certainly there are a great many more citations in the Simpson's article, and at least a few of those are from more reputable sources such as the New York Times, but even then the Simpsons' more impressive citations are reviews of individual episodes rather than of the clumped group. If this AfD is original research, then so is that Simpsons one. Irritating, particularly since I originally was writing a long diatribe about why no one would make an article about "Christmas Episodes of M*A*S*H". -Markeer 22:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, well referenced and not original research, OR requires a new idea not contained in the references, like saying Stewie is a Mormon based on things he says and does. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:SYN. As the nominator argues, the creation of a set of episodes constitutes the original research. The individual eps have their own page, but there isn't significant coverage out there to show that the set is notable as a set. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN Reads: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position." If you found something relevant, quote it here, don't send me on a fishing expedition to do your work. As I already said: "[original Research would be] saying Stewie is a Mormon based on things he says and does." Taking 10 facts from 10 sources on Family Guy isn't synthesis, its just ordinary scholarly research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking 10 facts from 10 sources and saying that "Facts one through ten taken together mean that XYZ is true" is original research. This article does advance a position that is not supported by reliable sources. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except "Facts one through ten taken together mean that XYZ is true" doesn't come from WP:SYN, and I haven't a clue what it means. Wikipedia isn't about truth it is about verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not that difficult of a concept. Presenting facts one through ten from reliable sources is not synthesis. Presenting facts one through ten from reliable sources and then asserting a conclusion that an editor derives from those facts that is not found in reliable sources is synthesis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, concluding that Stewie is a Mormon based on the references would be banned as OR, since it isn't expressed directly in the references. But now I am just cutting and pasting from earlier arguments. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as Are You The Cow Of Pain? said, the episodes as a set have not received attention to warrant an article and most of the article is thus WP:OR. The individual episodes have their own articles, but I do not believe their notability transfers to notability of the set. If the individual episodes did not have their own articles perhaps it could be kept for organization's sake, but that is not the case. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Its completely sourced, no OR making the deletion statement not resonable, also COP your the nominator you cannot really vote. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 07:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOHARM. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article is "Road to... episodes". This subject has not received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources, and I have yet to see a single reliable source which groups these episodes together into this "Road to..." subset. It is WP:OR because it is a WP:SYN. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per above. Well referenced, and not original research. Gage (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PERNOM. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now further explained my vote. Gage (talk) 12:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i worked my comment. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 12:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE --Odie5533 (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop linking to the same ESSAY over and over again. CTJF83 chat 19:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The association of a "road to..." series is not OR, since the naming and emphasis are provided by the show's creators via their titling and content conventions. Independent RS critical review of these specific episodes appears substantial enough for standalone notability, and the length precludes easily merging this content to anywhere else. Jclemens (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the reliable sources that address these episodes as a distinct subset of the series? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There may be some synthesis in there, although I didn't notice any. This ref seems to tie them together a bit, so I don't think the idea is OR. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What's this episode called" and "what's that episode called" is hardly scholarly or critical attention to the episodes as a subset. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced, no problems. CTJF83 chat 19:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where are the sources which are significantly about the episodes as an identified subset? The adequate sourcing for the individual episodes does not satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They all pass GNG individually, and the Road_to..._(Family_Guy)#Production_and_development section ties them all together, giving general background info. CTJF83 chat 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then, no third-party sources that offer significant coverage of the episodes as a subset. Got it. Again, passing GNG individually does not mean that the episodes as a subset do. There need to be sources that are about the subset as a concept, not just sources about the individual episodes that Wikipedia editors knit together. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Road to episodes created by Family Guy are a parody of the seven Road to... comedy films" ties them all together
"After the episode's success, including its nomination for a Primetime Emmy Award, a second episode in the Road to series was produced" explains why more than one was produced
..."entitled "Road to Europe". The episode was inspired by the 1941 film Road to Morocco, including its musical number "(We're off on the) Road to Morocco", which was previously parodied by the two characters, with new lyrics, in "Rhode Island" ties the 2 together by parodying the first Road to. CTJF83 chat 20:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All three of those are from the same source. Ω phois 20:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's that mean... CTJF83 chat 20:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cow of Pain requested sources that group the episodes together. You provided three instances of the grouping, but all three are from the same interview. So basically the concept of the entire article is based on one source? Ω phois 21:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

....I guess so. CTJF83 chat 21:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even so it counts, its an interview with the creaor of FG if he confiirmed everything in one source it those not matter as long as it dose the job. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 21:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone here is denying that the "Road to ..." episodes do form a group of Family Guy episodes, as confirmed by the creator and anyone that notices patterns. The problem is that the group has not received significant critical and scholarly attention. --Odie5533 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the cited source that indicates that all of the episodes whose titles begin with "Road to" are parodies of the Hope/Crosby films. It is a 2003 interview with Seth MacFarlane, at which time only two episodes called "Road to..." had been produced. It cannot serve as a reliable source for the episode set as a whole. Even if it did, MacFarlane merely notes that the first two episodes parodied the films and no subsequent source indicates that the films inspired any later episodes. There is nothing in the cited source that supports the assertion that the second episode was produced as a result of the first one or its success. The cited source does not support the assertion that the second episode parodies the first one. The entire production section is a collection of unrelated information stitched together by the products of unsupported editorial assumptions. "Road to Boo" followed "Road to Foo" therefore Boo must be related to and inspired by Foo. No. That is original research by synthesis. The article is premised on original research and in the complete absence of reliable sources that significantly cover the "Road to..." episodes as a distinct subset it has no place on Wikipedia. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

acually no its not, putting the same director in every one actually makes them a bit realeted plus after provemire left they got colton who has directed every Road to episode, plus if i where to make a series of episodes such as The Way to... and i make ...to the futere and to a Funeral, and after thease two episodes i confirm that that its a series, and then i makes other episodes and no one interviews me again for the subject i think it would count, plus making the plots simaler as they are makes them in each episode(Stewie and Brian in an adventure together) with the title makes it related. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 07:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that having the same directors makes them related and you assume that MacFarlane considered the first two a series (he did not say so in the interview) and you assume that MacFarlane intended for these to be considered a separate sub-series within the series despite a five-year gap between Morocco and Rupert and you assume that because they have similar plot structures they are part of a series and you assume and assume and assume. Assumptions made by editors are original research. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true if i rember in the interview the interviewer asked about the road to series MacFarlane did not correct him, you do not have o be every year god if it would it be like the THH which would get repetitive, plus for the last 3 seasons there have been continus episodes, having the same directors is not asuming nohin specially when Colton asked to make the episode which was gonna be called slyders be called road to the multiverse if you read the production i see your opinion respectibale and you do have some points at your side ut i belive as an editor that it deserves to be here as well as the other editors who voted keep. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people who voted Keep either worked on the article or are in the Family Guy project... Anyways, the Tree House of Horror is an annual episode and is named as such. It is widely known in popular culture, and is specifically referred to as the Tree House of Horror series. You only have one vague interview that connects the Road to episodes as a group, with the rest of the article based on original research. BTW, in Supernatural (TV series) all the season finales are written by Eric Kripke. Should I make an article listing all the season finales then? Ω phois 20:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I just looked through the interview you referred to. Unless I overlooked it, there is no direct mention of the episodes as a group. Ω phois 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The writers changed "Road to the Multiverse" into a "Road to" episode after the fact, and the eighth season premiere was supposed to be the "Road to" of the season, but was later renamed to be a normal episode. Treehouse of Horror has a consistent style and unique format. If the "Road to" name can arbitrarily be applied to episodes, then it shows that there is no real connection between these episodes. This plus the fact that you have yet to provide concrete references shows that it's not really a series. Ω phois 21:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two responses in regards to the misinformation Are You the Cow of Pain? and Ophois are trying to inject into this discussion: There is a five year gap between Europe and Rupert because the show was cancelled for nearly three years. The only seasons not to have a Road to episode are the first, which is understandable, the fourth, and the sixth, because it was cut short by the Writers' Strike, and aired in the seventh, which consisted entirely of hold-over episodes from the sixth season anyway. So, effectively, every season since the fifth season, not counting the other two, have featured a "Road" show, with another planned for the upcoming season. It has become a yearly hallmark, just as The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror is a yearly hallmark. And in response to Ophois' comment about the episode being named a "Road to" show after the fact is a completely uninformed argument; the commentary for that episode specifically states that the episode felt like a "Road to" show, and was named such for its resemblance to past episodes in the series of episodes, not because it was arbitrarily applied for no reason whatsoever. Also, in response to Ophois' statement about the Treehouse of Horror episodes consistng of a unique format; all of the episodes in the series follow Brian and Stewie, and exits the show's normal setting. Simply claiming the Treehouse of Horror series is unique because of a consistent style, while ignoring the fact that the "Road to" shows have also followed a consistent style is a blatant and biased attempt to ignore the facts. Gage (talk) 23:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the gap has nothing to do with this. And Spies Reminiscent of Us follows the format, so why is that not a "Road to" episode? If the episodes are a "yearly hallmark", then why have you still not provided any third-party sources that deem them so? You can argue all you want, but Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. You can try to connect these episodes together all you want, but without sources it is merely original research. Ω phois 23:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the gap has nothing to do with this, then why did you not object, or even state such, when Are You the Cow of Pain? used the same terminology as yet another failed rationale for deleting this article? And thank you for the edit conflict. Gage (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your claim that the only people who have voted keep are either members of WikiProject Family Guy, or users who have worked on the article, is completely false. Gage (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I said "most", not all. But you are right, it should have said "half". Ω phois 23:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your first comment, before you edited it and caused another edit conflict: Uh, of the seven, four haven't contributed and aren't memebers. That isn't "most." Gage (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Do you think maybe that's why I added to my original comment? Ω phois 00:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "half" is also a misstatement, so I wanted to respond to your original comment. Gage (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) And once again, Gage (who wrote the article, BTW), I have to ask, where are the reliable sources that treat these episodes as a distinct subset within the series? You as an editor have, without support from reliable third-party sources, have synthesized a set of circumstances by which you define an episode as being part of a critically attested to subset. Episodes which otherwise fit the pattern but don't happen to be called "Road to..." are not part of this based solely on the fact that the episodes share similar names. The "Treehouse of Horror" model is completely inapplicable because ToH has received critical attention as a distinct unit both through the broadcasts themselves and through critical notice of ToH products. The Road to episodes have not. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gage (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One sentence in a college newspaper review? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added four references, and highlighted two more. I guess those don't count either, just like everything else that connects the episodes together, and work against your unwanted opinion. Gage (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I misread your additions but in reviewing the other sources they all appear to be passing mentions of the episodes and not critical attention to the concept. I get that you have serious ownership issues when it comes to FG articles but that's no excuse for copping an attitude and calling the legitimate opinion of a fellow editor "unwanted". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing tangent that got personal, as distracting from the point of the discussion

Here we go with the ownersihp BS again. I am a member of WikiProject Family Guy. You yourself obviously have an obsession with homosexuality, and transgenders, so much so, you revert probably 95% of the edits added to the Quagmire's Dad article, which you have complete ownership of; which is apparent to anyone who attempts to edit that article. And I guess if all else fails, name calling may be the best tactic to use. Gage (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who said of editing "Quagmire's Dad" "I'll just replace it again months down the road when I'm still working on this article, and you've gone back to stacking blocks". Nor have other editors felt the need to exhort me to allow them to edit the article in peace. Your membership in WP:FG doesn't give your edits or your opinion more validity than those of editors who aren't. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, since I stopped attempting to edit the article, nearly every contributor has been reverted by you since June. And my memersip in WP:FG is the reason why I edit the article, not to make my opinion seem more important than others. Gage (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you point out my misstatement of "most" editors earlier, but then make this claim against Cow of Pain. BTW, looking at the reverts, most if not all of those should have been reverted. Ω phois 01:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gage, there is a huge difference between ownership and removing just plain poor edits. A glance at the history of that page shows to me that Cow of Pain was doing the latter. And I must say, seeing your comments and attitude here today (and those Cow of Pain just pointed out) have made me lose all respect I had for you as an editor. Ω phois 01:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in earning the respect of others. Thanks though. Gage (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you not provide these sources the many times we asked before? By opposition has slightly lowered (Cow of Pain is correct that it is just passing mentions), but I agree with Bignole below that the article is basically a rehash of all the individual articles. There is nothing I can find that cohesively covers the series as a whole. Ω phois 01:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added yet another quote connecting the episodes. Gage (talk) 02:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you may say what you say ophios whats done is done, he may have added them later but who cares, ophios i now that your a high eficient editor(we have bud heads before) but i see no reason to delete and by my knowing the vote of the nominator those not count so i wish that to be removed, the artical stands on its own the gap between episodes which COP made clear that was a issue and now explained it dose not matter, look lets get something clear and thanks for your sacastic comments about SN season finales q paso una ostia, anyway what happens between the omments above that got personal, is that editors get mad or loose patience, and puting respect for editors was offline and uncalled for. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're coming up with this "the nominator's vote doesn't count" business but it's simply false. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well its always like that as i know, the nomitanors vite is already assumed as you nominated but you do not vote your vote is aleady asumed by every one so your wrong. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 13:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's for FAC, something completely different than this. The nominator's vote and opinion on the matter definitely counts for deletion reviews. Ω phois 16:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a single page that basically copy and pastes the same information from the articles for each individual episode. If this article is to stand alone, it must show that it itself is notable. Being a compilation of notable topics doesn't necessarily make the compilation as a whole notable. What I see here is someone who has inserted their own dialogue (the episodes have been generally praised....) and then included reception for each individual episode, which...shockingly (sarcasm)...is already on the episode pages. What this really seems to need to be is a section (with actual commentary on the idea of "Road to..." episodes, not just restating the same thing that appears on each individual page) on the main page. The individual episodes do a fine job of stating their own production, and their own reception, and their own awards won. They don't need a second page that says exactly the same thing, just stuck together. There's nothing actually new on this page, because it's a copy past job of each episode page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Cow of Pain and my previous comments. Ω phois 00:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is not original research if there are sources that back up the information. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if there aren't sources then it is. So where are the sources? A couple of random mentions of the supposed "series" is not the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "random mention"? Something is mentioned or it isn't. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to attack everyone who votes keep. Especially since you have been provided source after source, and choose to ignore them and pass them off as nothing. Gage (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to level false accusations that my responses constitute "attacks" but then I'm hardly surprised by your lack of good faith. You have not provided sources which offer significant coverage of these episodes as a distinct subset. Adding links to every Google result that you get for "road to episodes" or whatever doesn't constitute referencing to reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the concept. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, IGN and The Sydney Morning Herald are notoriously unreliable. You've made your opinion clear, no need for the condescending responses, when I'm sure they took your points into consideration already. Gage (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop distorting my statements to further your agenda. I did not say that any source was or was not reliable. I am saying that while there are a handful of sources that in the course of discussing one episode or another use a phrase like "Road to series" there are not sources that are significantly about "The Family Guy Road to... episodes". The most reliable source on the planet can mention something in a single sentence or a single phrase and that does not constitute significant coverage of the concept. Your interpretation of my comments as "condescending" is entirely on you and not my responsibility. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 02:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Where are the sources?" You see those numbers, like [1] and [2] etc, they guide down to the references section. There's your sources. -- Matthew R Dunn (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And having reviewed those sources, it is obvious that none of them offer significant coverage of the concept. One-sentence mentions are trivial per WP:GNG and no proffered source has anything other than trivial mentions. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a direct quote that "One-sentence mentions are trivial". "He was born in 1912" and "Casablanca is the most important movie in cinema history" are single sentences, and would be fine as a reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Notability, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Nobody is debating that the sources used are reliable or can be used in an article. But the sources give one-off mentions of the episodes as a series, and does not go into detail. This is one of the primary factors of establishing notability for an article. Ω phois 05:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also per the same guideline: "Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. ) is plainly trivial." Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except we have 7 sources each providing one or two sentences. That is one sentence times 7, and has the same depth of coverage as being mentioned seven times in one article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:Notability. A topic has notability if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It says sources, meaning "one article" alone would not establish notability. Ω phois 18:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am no mathematical genius, but from what I remember from grade school is that 7 is greater than 1. You can correct me is I am wrong. We have seven sources, and the above argument was based on the number 7. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you just stated that the seven trivial sources are the equivalent of one significant mention. Ω phois 20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never used the word trivial. Trivial is a subjective word not defined by Wikipedia. I used "one sentence" reference. "Trivial" is your personal bias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, "trivial" would be the bias of WP:Notability, which clearly categorizes the mentions for this article as such. Regardless of the appropriate term, you yourself stated that the one-sentence mentions used are the equivalent of merely one article of significant coverage. Ω phois 20:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~With all the sources provided, I now agree that the series has enough coverage.~~ However, my main concern now is that it appears to just be a slight hodgepodge of all the episodes. It doesn't really cover the development of the series, but rather the production info for each individual episode that is already on the respective article pages. For example, a large chunk of the reception section is brief reviews of each episode. This article is supposed to be about the series itself, not the episodes, so the reception section should mainly cover the series as a whole. Ω phois 00:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Cow of Pain's latest point is very true. None of the sources cover the series as a whole, and give trivial references to the episodes as a series. Ω phois 03:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May that be true, when it is not as dirctor colton himself and macfarlane admited that it is a series, plus as Jaymax the media thinks of them as a series, so in souurces, and reliable IGN, etc, make COP´s point being solved. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 06:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they stated it was a series as a trivial reference. None of the sources in this article provide significant coverage of the subject as a whole to establish any notability. Ω phois 11:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section within the main Family Guy article. The problem is lack of independent secondary coverage of the informal grouping of the episodes on their own. There is some identification of a series of episodes in the style of the old Road to ones as identified by Seth McF,, but there's no special meaning to the grouping by independent sources. Most of what's there - the production section - can be included in the main show article without a problem. --MASEM (t) 04:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Took me two minutes to find publications referring to "now-classic “Road to …" series" and SMH with "his is one of Family Guy's "Road To" episodes that borrow ...". The allegation of OR does not stack up, since the set of episodes is already perceived as a series in the media. ~~There might be a case that additional cites addressing this are needed~~ (sources are sufficient), but no case for deletion. ‒ Jaymax✍ 05:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Referring to" is not the standard for inclusion. "Significant coverage" is the standard. There remains no evidence that these episodes as a unit have received significant coverage in reliable sources. "Somebody said 'Road to series' in a magazine" does not satisfy WP:GNG. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (invited from notability talk page) This discussion has gone off on a lot of tangents. The core question is whether the subject of this article by itself (i.e. this subset of the Family Guy series, rather than the overall series) has received the required coverage by other sources. IMHO the answer is yes, such is shown in the reference list, and is also evident elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- You guys must be hiding these gold mine sources. Please share them! All I see is at best trivial mentioning as a passing thought in an interview. Where are the articles discussing the "Road to ..." subset? --Odie5533 (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing tangent that got personal, as distracting from the point of the discussion

Comments this a weird nomination where one Family Guy geek is trying to delete the work of another Family Guy geek. I use the term geek as a compliment. They are arguing over how many Quagmires can dance on the head of a pin. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you pretty sure of that? If so, that provides additional context/overview. If so, I certainly don't see any consensus for deletion in the above. If so, just close it as "keep". Not that I have a horse in this race or expertise, I just dropped in per an invite at wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out User:Are You The Cow Of Pain?, the nominator, he has a badge for promoting a Family Guy article to Good Article status. So, it seems that this is one of those things that spilled from talk page to AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, you could not assume things about fellow editors. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was assuming anything bad, just trying to understand the situation. North8000 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, Are You The Cow Of Pain? was not the one who got that article through GA, I was. He simply just likes to pretend that he was involved in that article's promotion, despite being asked to remove it by another user. Gage (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I myself can confirm it, i asked him to remove it from it and he deleted my message. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that without my contributions your horribly-written starter article would never have made it to GA, since I had to re-write the plot description pretty much from scratch and also wrote half of the reception section, my putting that tag on my page is completely reasonable. Knowing that it annoys you is just gravy. As for your message, Pedro, I didn't read it when you posted it and now that I have I still don't have the slightest idea what you were trying to say. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a strike against my miss spells. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from one source, they are identical. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:Notability, one source does not establish notability for a topic. Ω phois 02:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "ten facts from ten sources". It's ten recurrences of the same supposed "fact" (and it's not a fact in the first place). Regardless, ten trivial mentions don't equal one substantive source anyway. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of us both cutting and pasting previous arguments, just wait for the AFD to be closed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waffle card game[edit]

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

Made up game Marcus Qwertyus 21:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dang, first time I've conflicted creating an AFD! Anyway, whoever created this made this up during a bus trip someplace. Not for here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was trying to prod this as a textbook example of Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, bullet point 2; I missed the essay. Bk314159 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article is clearly made up. Google search reveals only non-related results. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 22:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article about a made-up game, with bad grammar and written in the second person. Tell the kids to stay in bed; it's a snow day. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Fails WP:GNG - Happysailor ^(Talk) 16:45, 7 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. Well done to Uncle G for a stellar job on the article. Mkativerata (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster motorcycle parking charge (née No to bike parking tax)[edit]

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

Or would db-a7 apply here? Marcus Qwertyus 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is being considered for deletion, It's just popped up and like many other pages will require time to grow a little, cite the sources and balance out to a neutral viewpoint. - Nitro1592 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitro1592 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send Back to the Sandbox Best practice is to work on a theoretical article in the Sandbox, not in the mainspace, if the article completely lacks citations. -Markeer 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Bike Parking Tax controversy". There seems to be a lot of news about the bike parking tax in Westminster. Might have skidded through A7 CSD too. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the simple and straightforward Westminster motorcycle parking charge would be a better title, less likely to become a magnet for misplaced soapboxing? Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very impressive rewrite, Uncle G! --Odie5533 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be a case for an article about this topic, but this article is such as WP:SOAPBOX you might as well start all over again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding Nitro1592's comment, I have started an SPI case that can be viewed here Acather96 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send back to the sandbox: I personally agree with Markeer, if it's put back there then it can be worked on out of the way, and then released later on. "Acather96" I appreciate your concern regarding this and have replied accordingly, I hope it provides insight. Nitro1592 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now rewritten with sources by Uncle G. The protests were a highly visible (and audible) recurrent event, within sight of Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament, as the sources amply demonstrate. All it needs now is some pictures. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll declare an interest here, because my daughter travels to her workplace in the City of Westminster by motorbike, so is hit by this charge, but putting personal knowledge aside I can see that this has had ample coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Revisions and sources with significant coverage have shown this to pass our standards.--Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised/renamed. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:51, 8 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 as copyvio, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comedic writing[edit]

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

Essay as spotted on New Pages Patrol. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G12 most text was lifted wholesale from here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per TenPoundHammer. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 22:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The rest of the text was lifted from here. Deor (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow. Carrite (talk) 02:49, 4 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Macedo[edit]

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

Non-notable financial advisor. The only marginal claim of notability in the article is that he was listed among "America's Top Financial Advisors" by the Consumers Research Council of America, whose criteria for inclusion appear to be somewhat questionable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a recreation of one that had been speedily deleted under G11 less than two hours earlier. While the tone is no longer "unambiguous advertising", it still reads like a CV and there is nothing to reliably demonstrate notability. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subject is apparently not notable, article has no reliable sources. Nuujinn (talk) 01:42, 10 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecocache[edit]

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

An EcoCache is not a widely recognized type of geocache. The article has no reliable sources verifying that EcoCaches are notable. The EcoCaches that are listed do not appear to be linked together, rather they all use the same name. §hep ^Talk 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I could not find any reliable sources on the subject and thus the article fails to meet the WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 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 and stubify. —fetch ·comms 01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edifício São Vito[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Translation#How_to_translate and a contested PROD. This article appears to be a machine translation from the Português Wikipedia with no included references and no notability established within the contents of the English article. After waiting close to a week, it appears no effort has been made to clean up the translation by hand and, per the above policy, consensus on Wikipedia is that machine translations are worse than nothing. ialsoagree (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REGULAR DELETE. Lacks proper sources. Could care less about the rest. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. IamtheLOL (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reduce to stub until in can be properly translated. It has received very significant coverage from reliable sources like Época [2][3], O Globo [4][5] and Agora São Paulo.[6]--Oakshade (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would actually agree with you if it weren't for the link I cited in the AFD nomination regarding translations, and a lack of sourced notability for the English Wikipedia. It's already consensus that a machine translation is worse than nothing, and after a week the article has seen no one willing to contribute useful edits to the translation. In addition, how can notability be derived from the sources you claim for an article on the English Wikipedia, when the sources are not in English and no one is translating them? If someone was willing to go through the translation or even cut parts out that did not translate well, as well as establish and source the notability of the article's subject in English, I'd be willing to support a keep. Until then, I think the article really is worse than nothing. ialsoagree (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(And just to add, having the article deleted isn't really a loss. It appears to be nothing more than a machine translation of the article on the Português Wikipedia, everything there could easily be machine translated again if someone was willing to put in the above work). ialsoagree (talk) 03:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "English" in "English Wikipedia" refers to the language in which articles are written, not th elanguage of the sources on which articles are based. There is no requirement in either the verifiability policy or notability guideline for sources to be in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources exist to establish notability of this building. SnottyWong ^prattle 22:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not read my vote? What about the reliable sources I cited? If you feel this should be deleted for the reasons Ialosagree states, fine. But don't state "No reliable sources exist" when links to reliable sources have been provided.--Oakshade (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify per Oakshade. While a machine translation of the full article may be undesirable, I think it's equally undesirable (and perhaps smacks of systemic bias) to eliminate this article entirely when there are so many reliable sources in Portuguese (and maybe a few in English[7][8]). Having an English stub would accomplish at least three things: it provides English readers with at least a minimal amount of information about this very interesting subject, along with some photos from Commons[9] and an interwiki link to the full article in Portuguese; it gives editors an incentive to dig up more sources in English; and it alerts Portuguese-capable editors to the need to expand the article. The fact that this hasn't happened in a week is no reason to assume it won't happen; there's no deadline for this sort of stuff.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stubify per above. The sources provided should resolve the notability issues, and there are better ways to address the machine translation issues than outright deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:59, 7 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. merge isnt appropriate as this appears to be a content fork. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mezvinsky-Clinton wedding[edit]

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

Page is an almost exact duplicate of the same material on the Chelsea Clinton page, and this article appears to have been created because the Marc Mezvinsky page is on the threshold of deletion. Everything that needs to be said about the wedding has been said on the Chelsea Clinton page. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Chelsea Clinton is a valid article, Marc Mezvinsky and Mark Mezvinsky are valid redirects (one as a misspelling). This article is not valid. — Timneu22 · talk 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Agree with the nom, WP:CONTENTFORK classic WP:NOTNEWSWeaponbb7 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Wikinews adequately covers the topic and is the only thing outside of a sentence or paragaph in Chealsea Clinton's article or Mezvinsky's if he ever runs for senate or something. 00:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep A notable event with nationwide media coverage; this AfD is premature for an article that was stubbed out a mere 18hrs ago. The article could conceivably grow to contain details which would be WP:UNDUE within the biography of the bride. I'd be happy to revisit a merge, say, six months down the road, and if it's still a short stub, a merge would probably be fine. -- Kendrick7^talk 20:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I cannot envision this article growing. There's nothing further to report about the wedding except unencyclopedic details such as the color of Hillary Cinton's gown or the brand of champagne served. These details belong in a gossip magazine not an encyclopedia. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree completely with the nomination - regardless of the result of the Mezvinsky article this is redundant to the Chelsea article and integrated there with no problem. Hekerui (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Newsworthy doesn't equal notable. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - wedding of the century, right? I would merge Marc Mezvinsky into this one until he gains his own notability, which may never come.

Bearian (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the century is only a decade old. Let's wait another 90 years before we rush to judgement. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Keep The wedding itself was a notable event judging from the media coverage already. As more details are known more information will be added to the article. The event has an importance beyond its effect on the two people. Wolfview (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media coverage, John Stewart spent last night lampooning the lack of information they were covering nothing. I hate to use the John Stewart as the basis for an argument here but we are arguing to keep this Article. there is no reason to keep it when it is already covered in the Chealsea Clinton's article. This is'nt something that blewup so big it needs is own article. Paragraph or phrase in her article would more then suffice. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying we need the article. But it was more than just an event in two people's lives. Wolfview (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was it then? It had absolutely no effect on the world that has been recorded. People are hungry for gossip about the rich and the media delivers. These sorts of news stories are not encyclopedic but simply pander to our desire to snoop into the lives of the others. I have yet to read any news story that indicates this wedding was an event of great moment. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the effect is to make the Clinton family look stupid and to show how shallow and celebrity obbsessed the American people are that would merit an article. Many much smaller events, like one episode of a TV show, have articles.Wolfview (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a society page. Deor (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, that's true, but we've got a handful of articles in Category:Royal weddings. It's odd for such a free-wheeling project to take the stance that only the royals are notable. In the U.S. this is about as close as we get. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference. The marriage of Charles and Diana, for example, was an event of great moment because Diana would assuredly become the mother of a future monarch that would likely influence the lives of millions. Susanne2009NYC (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think another difference between this wedding and the royal ones is that the royal ones are televised, making them public events. (At least, I'm under the impression they were all televised. If any of them were private affairs equivalent to Chelsea's except that one or more of the participants were royalty, I don't think they should have articles, either.) Propaniac (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This article obviously has valuable information, but I don't think it has enough to justify it being a separate article. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 05:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it grows, but as a stub it can be added to their individual biographies. To be own article it has to concentrate on details of wedding and the invitation list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:EVENT is the relevant policy. There's lots of coverage of the subject; not sure of the other criteria. —Ashley Y 10:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just don't think there's much of importance to say about it. Yes, there's a ton of media coverage, but it seems primarily to be reporting details for the sake of reporting details, not because it actually matters in any way what color the centerpieces were or somesuch. It might somehow turn out to be a historically significant event, but right now it just looks like something that happened. Propaniac (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into Chelsea Clinton's page. I'm old enough to remember Tricia Nixon Cox's wedding, which happened while her dad was still President. AFAIK we don't have a separate article on that wedding, which was subject to a flurry of coverage on a slow news day as well. I'm as much in favor of the conversion of the U.S. government to a hereditary monarchy as anyone else, but until that happens, royal weddings are going to be state occasions tied to real, recognized dynasties, and Chelsea Clinton's wedding is not. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We could join the Commonwealth of Nations. Wolfview (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the content of any value is already in the BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete* Anything useful can be described in two lines on the CC article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Propaniac that a major difference between the Charles-Diana wedding and this wedding is that the Charles-Diana wedding was broadcast to millions of viewers throughout the world, while this wedding wasn't broadcast to anyone anywhere. Yes, some media did report on this wedding, but whatever there was for them to report (and there wasn't that much) can be covered in the Chelsea Clinton article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who cares. This is an event in the life of a first daughter; not a notable historical event Bwmoll3 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chelsea Clinton article. —fetch ·comms 17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chelsea Clinton article. There is little here to justify a seperate page. 65.35.147.38 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the Marc Mezvinsky article was deleted/redirected to Chelsea Clinton#Engagement and marriage; that's where any relevant content should be merged. — Timneu22 · talk 15:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Chelsea Clinton article. There is some good information, but this event doesn't warrant its own article. Airplaneman ✈ 19:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why the word "banal" exists. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no new information. this is a pretty pathetic article with a single paragraph. she is not royalty. 184.96.118.189 (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable event, lots of media attention. Everyking (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Park Baseball Complex[edit]

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

Minor neighborhood park not notable Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-Notable and no sources. IamtheLOL (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment this does not seem to be an official name, that is why no search hits. But I would disagree that the park is a minor neighbourhood park, more like a major neighbourhood park. But it is mentioned [10][11]. There would be at least 4 possible backlinks to this article from Wikipedia if they were put in. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL wonderful we have confirmed they have toilet... congrats you made me smileWeaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Upper Ferntree Gully, Victoria#Natural features, where the park is already described in sufficient detail. Most of the material in this article is trivial (and unsourced). Deor (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - there are no indications of notability Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 5 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) 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OnePlace[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. The only coverage that seems to exist is the one given in the article ([12]), and it's just a brief summary of a press release. Haakon (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sources to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:52, 5 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 Wrong forum Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin coverup hoax[edit]

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

The title is not NPOV. Even though it is merely a REDIRECT to the actual article, there is a problem: when you type 'franklin coverup' in the Wikipedia search box, the suggested phrase 'Franklin coverup hoax' appears, making it seem as though Wikipedia's position on the topic is that it's conclusively a hoax. Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 19:50, 3 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 with leave to speedy renominate if someone has a deletion rationale based on one of our policies/guidelines. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuwen Zhang[edit]

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

No visits to page, no notoriety. Move to the university page Diman011 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "No visits to page" would not be a valid reason to delete a Wikipedia article, even if it were true. The subject of this article appears to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion as outlined at WP:PROF. Peacock (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no valid reason for deletion has been presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Fellow of ASME may meet WP:PROF #3. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 08:28, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of flight schools[edit]

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

This article is a list of flight schools. There are many thousands of flight schools worldwide, the vast majority of which are non-notable. If the article were expanded to nearer its goal it would therefore end up as a list of non-notable subjects and therefore an indiscriminate list of information and an inherently non-encyclopedic topic. Furthermore because nearly all flight schools are commercial enterprises this list has become a spam magnet attracting COI editors to add their schools to the list. Ahunt (talk) 19:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aPer nominator. - BilCat (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, can't really add to the rationale. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Crum375 (talk) 04:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Roger (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination (and therefore any "per nom" delete opinions) is flawed in that it is based on what the nominator fears what might happen to this list rather than what it actually is, which is a work-in-progress (as are all of our articles) list of notable flight schools, which clearly serves a navigational purpose, per WP:LIST#Navigation. Many of our articles are spam magnets, but we have ways of dealing with that problem such as watchlisting, blocking and (semi-)protection, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater by deleting articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This argument is flawed because there is nothing in the article to substantiate the allegation of notability of any of the entities listed. The fact remains that the list is simply a random collection of flight schools and thus violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The article has existed for 2 years (almost to the day) yet it doesn't contain a single reference. Roger (talk) 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe that Category:Aviation schools actually fulfills that function much more effectively than this list does. It avoids the problem of non-notable schools being added as redlinks, since the article must exist to be in the category and it avoids the relentless link-spamming by flight school owners for the same reason, they must have an article to be included. This list article is redundant to the more effective use of a category instead. - Ahunt (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:CLN guideline for an explanation of why categories and lists are not redundant to each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That still does not solve the problems the list has: It remains a random collection of non notable entities without any refs. Roger (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an alternative approach to deletion is to only allow blue-linked entries: - Something similar to List of aircraft by tail number, which only list articles where a specific aircraft is substantailly covered in that article. Mjroots (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That would make it an exact copy of the category, thus pointless. Roger (talk) 07:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are notable flight schools. It makes sense to have a list of them for navigational purposes. Get rid of the non-notable entries and the problem is solved.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not convinced there is any point in having an article/list that is an exact duplicate of an already existing category - we may then just as well abolish the entire category system as a waste of bytes. See also the previous comments. Roger (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But our guidelines are quite clear that categories and lists serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive. For instance, lists give more freedom to the writer in respect of prose and structure. Phil Bridger has linked the relevant guideline - which is quite clear - so I need not do so again. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What in fact is the different purpose served by this list? It contains no significant prose, there is nothing special about its structure, its just a plain list. A category is a much more sophisticated "list" in that is is subdivided/sortable in any number of ways. What does this list do that the category doesn't/can't do? "Just because we can" is not a sufficient reason to do something. Roger (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our whole project is a work in progress. We don't delete things before they have the chance.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its been two years since the page was first created - even elephants are not pregnant that long! It has no references, contains a random mix of flight schools including non-notable ones, has no criteria for inclusion or exclusion. If you can't get it into any sort of reasonable shape in all this time its never going to happen. Pull the plug - there is no baby in this bathwater. BTW Not one of the issues raised by the Nominator have been addressed yet. Roger (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarding the argument that this is an indiscriminate collection of information: in essence it is not; it is a list of notable flight schools. We can discriminate on the basis of notability. Regarding the argument of how long this list has been around: there is no merit to the argument to delete. From WP:CLN: "building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list—deleting link lists wastes these building blocks, and unnecessarily pressures list builders into providing a larger initial commitment of effort whenever they wish to create a new list, which may be felt as a disincentive". This list has achieved that first step, and is just waiting for someone to clean it up, add references, and add prose. There is no time limit for this to happen. Jujutacular ^talk 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, WP:CLN only really applies as an argument if there is any reasonable hope that the list might someday become more usefull than a plain category, otherwise, consensus is free to declare the maintaining of it is a waste of time. And I can't see any usefull embellishment ever happening with this list. What could possibly be done to it that cannot be done by categorisation? And currently, the list is even worse than a category organisation, as it contains entries that are not articles about flight schools, just places that have flight schools, which would be of no use to the theoretical person who just one day wanted to look thru a list of notable flight schools (if that mythical person even exists, I rather think he is made of straw). MickMacNee (talk) 22:03, 10 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 redirect to Michelle Obama. I understand the nominator's point, but it doesn't appear that s/he noticed that a merge was alreadysuggested not only here, but on the article page itself (and no one opposed it). There shouldn't be a problem if a section about this topic is added to the main article, however. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racial attacks on Michelle Obama[edit]

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

Wikipedia is suppose to be an encyclopedia, not a place for random news articles for trivial non-sense. Yephedid (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge Content fork, lotta of Allegations seem cherry picked and questionable sources at best. Merge to Ms. Obama's page Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Pretty clear content fork, this material should be encompassed in a subsection of the M.O. biography, if it's not already. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - As the article's creator, I say merge. This article was already nominated to be merged, actually, which makes this AFD somewhat odd. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:18, 3 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. —fetch ·comms 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients[edit]

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

Delete. This is a renomination from nine months ago. I've monitored this article since then, and it remains to be a long, comparative list of non-notable products all of which are red links or circular redirects. In the previous discussion WP:USEFUL was cited, but there is lots of useful information on the internet of questionable reliability. The difference is that we are not a product guide, we do not advertise for non-notable software products, we are not a software directory, and we do not publish original research or otherwise redistribute information that has not been first cited by a reliable third party publication. Thank you for your time. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not a software catalog. Wikipedia is not Consumer Reports. Wikipedia is not a comparison service. Standalone lists should have "membership criteria based on reliable sources." No sources here except maybe some self-published ones. Much of data on this list is original research. These problems with article are systemic and cannot be fixed. If sources appeared article would not look like it does now. New author should start it completely over based on the sources. Deletion of this OR material would not be useful to a new author. Miami33139 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Category:Software comparisons. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a policy based argument. Miami33139 (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - "In an article's deletion debate, an editor unfamiliar with guidelines may vote to keep an article solely because articles similar to it exist. Another contributor may respond simply by saying that just because other stuff exists does not mean that the article in question should be kept. While perhaps a legitimate response, the automatic dismissal of such a statement is just as lacking in rationale and thus the second user has provided no reason to delete the article. In such a case, both arguments should likely be discounted by the closing administrator." Silverseren^C 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The second user has provided a reason to delete the article. Please note my delete rationale. Miami33139 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:OSE. As clearly shown by Richard Arthur Norton, consensus by existence of the category clearly seems to show that comparisons of different types of software are, in general, accepted on Wikipedia. For this reason, it can be said that such comparison lists are an exception to WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as the information contained within is encyclopedic-ally relevant and convenient for understanding the differences between brands of a specific type of software. Silverseren^C 06:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are exceptions to exceptions even. Not one single subject listed on this comparison page is notable. All links are red links or are circular redirects. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because they are IRC clients. Not very many of them are going to be notable enough for their own article. For the best effect, the links should probably be directed to the mobile device that they are for, since that is what this page is about, a comparison between IRC clients for mobile devices. For example, AndroidChat should direct the reader to the article for the Android. But, regardless, the fact that there are red links doesn't make the page non-notable, since the purpose of the page is to give comparisons, not to necessarily direct the reader elsewhere (though they should have the option to look at the devices for the clients, per my suggestion). Silverseren^C 06:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless of the individual notability of the clients, where does the comparison information come from? It has to come from reliable sources. Do you see any in this article? Miami33139 (talk) 07:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is true. But has any effort been made whatsoever to see if sources can be added? From what I can see, the answer to that is no. Silver seren^C 07:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Burden to add source for a fact is on those who add the fact. Since no source exist for any fact, all fact can be deleted. That is what my rationale says. Maybe this is valid topic, but this version is not it and this version can not be fix without starting from zero. So delete it, let someone else start from zero and build up using sourced material. This unreference material actually hinder attempt to make a valid one because unreference material in the way. Miami33139 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, don't the websites for the clients, listed on the far right column, contain the information? At first glance, it looks like they do. Silver seren^C 07:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you cite any random fact given about CoolIRC based on website given? Don't trust first glance. This is why lists must have objective inclusion criteria which this completely fails. Miami33139 (talk) 08:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hah hah, picking the one that has a broken link. However, take Mobile Colloquy. The website attached has all of the information provided. Silver seren^C 08:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Does Mobile Colloqquy support IPv6 or TLS? Miami33139 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Voters should make sure to look at the arguments put forth in the previous AfD for this article and also this AfD (as was pointed out in the previous AfD). Silver seren^C 07:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...I just realized that both of those AfDs were also nominated by JBsupreme. Silver seren^C 07:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator is the same nominator of the last AfD, which had no other !votes to delete. Nominator raises no new reasons for deletion. Perhaps if the OP disagreed with the consensus, he could have taken it to deletion discussion (though I suspect there would be few there who would agree with him). WP:BEFORE could be followed & our deletion policy notes that "it can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." --Karnesky (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no new arguments for deletion since previous keep. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is blatantly false. I will reiterate now, as I did at the start of this nomination that this list has not improved since the original nomination and defies our standards both for notability and attribution to reliable third party sources. There is not some sort of magical loophole for comparison lists that I'm aware of, and shouting WP:USEFUL doesn't make these problems go away either. In the end the closing administrator can weigh the arguments from all parties as he or she wishes. In Wikipedia I trust. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. Wikipedia is not about creating and enforcing rules, it is creating and improving articles. (Hence WP:IAR.) We have lots of unsung but extremely good Comparison-of-<products> articles. Such articles consist of tables, meaning that some of the rules for normal (prose-format) articles cannot be applied without compromising them. So there does have to be some loosening of some of our rules for comparison articles (unless you want to argue for banning all comparison articles, in which case I say you have no idea what Wikipedia is about and should cease editing immediately.)
This article could use some improvement, but that is no reason to delete it. Indeed, the chances of someone working on improving it would be improved if people would stop trying to get it deleted on the basis of excessively creative wikilawyering. CWC 15:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since (in your eyes) it's such an obvious keep, even while acknowledging this list is flawed, what do you propose can be done to improve it? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That question is irrelevant here. Cheers, CWC 03:04, 10 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xcel Petroleum[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:CORP. Taroaldo (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed, not notable + completely unreferenced. Shearonink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dewritech (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-Notable. IamtheLOL (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. They operate gas stations. No claim of historical or technical significance, and the article makes no convincing case for cultural significance as a landmark or household name in its territory. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (heavy metal band)[edit]

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

Not a notable band. No albums on reputable labels, no charts, no coverage (except for one single article). They do have a MySpace page, however. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bass player is at AfD as well: please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loshaarn Bastian. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources.--Canniba loki 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of the two provided references is to a UK-download website. Also band does not seem to have enough notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Shearonink (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-Notable. IamtheLOL (talk) 21:19, 3 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loshaarn Bastian[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. No sources provided, none can be found. His band, Nemesis (heavy metal band), is headed for AfD as well. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drmies comments.--Canniba loki 18:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notablity, no sources found to show that. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 8 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ismail Nami[edit]

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

I've looked through these Google hits and could find nothing. Google Books likewise offers nothing. The article, of course, offers even less. Delete: notability not established. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. No information available more than what's on this page, which is lifted from [13]. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. IamtheLOL (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect will be created to Foreign exchange market. Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forex news[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. This concept is not yet notable enough for it's own article. Should be a mention under Foreign exchange market article. Padillah (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Foreign exchange market as a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - this could easily be covered in half a sentence, or maybe even half a paragraph, in Foreign exchange market - in fact I think it is already. There is a fairly significant problem with foreign exchange market article spinoffs - they tend to be very commercial - encouraging folks to bet the house on very poor gambles. Smallbones (talk) 02:22, 4 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charly's School[edit]

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

With under 300 people in the school, this looks non-notable to me. Article only has 2 sentences and few refs. Pilif12p : Yo 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I also know WP:BIAS. The "problem" with this school seems to be that it's located in South America, and not the United States... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is about a not-so-well-known school outside Chile, but well, I thought secondary schools are notable. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 17:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Diego has explained to me why it's notable on IRC. If possible, i'd like to withdraw this AfD if it could be expanded. Pilif12p : Yo 18:00, 3 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. —fetch ·comms 01:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Christian School (Barrie)[edit]

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

Non notable Junior high school per WP:GNG Mo ainm~Talk 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per nomination. Even considering to reinstate the speedy. ☭FryPod 17:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frypod (talk · contribs) has been blocked and has admitted to being a sock of a banned user. —Soap— 19:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The speedy deletion tag on the article was the A3 tag, which goes to articles with no content. The editor added the infobox and some information about the subject, which meant that there was now content and the speedy deletion (under that criteria) wasn't warranted - and I did not see another criteria that applied. So, I declined the speedy, while cautioning the editor to expand the article and add sources and document the notability. I also noted that K-8 schools are rarely found to be notable under our policies, and I don't see any evidence to suggest that there is anything unusual about this school that makes it any different. For my part, Userfication might be an option, to give the author a reasonable amount of time to work on a good attempt at an article - but, as I said, I don't think the subject is notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to understand how secondary schools are assumed to be notable, while lower schools are not. But those are the guidelines and I see no point in expanding them. No speedy creteria apply. Hairhorn (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be accurate, as far as I know there is no guideline that says that secondary schools are assumed to be notable, and not lower schools, but that has become an accepted convention by consensus. I used to think that this was stupid until, in another AfD, a user gave me a link to an earlier discussion on the subject. Once I had read that discussion I decided that there were tolerably good reasons behind the convention. Unfortunately I can no longer remember either what the reasons were nor where the discussion was, which is not much help, but I thought it worth mentioning. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there should be room in WP for an article on any school, even the most miserable little madrassa. Needs rewriting to be more informative. -Welhaven (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Google News Archive search comes up with nothing useful.^[14] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Barrie per usual practice. This is one of several schools named Timothy Christian School, and a couple of them have pages here on Wikipedia. However, the others include a high school, whereas this school is K-8. Under the usual consensus that means it is not automatically considered notable, it needs to meet the WP:GNG rule - and this school doesn't. Question: why is the infobox titled "Monsignor Clair School"? --MelanieN (talk) 13:57, 10 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 I withdraw. This is going nowhere. Maashatra11 (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ioan Dem. Dimăncescu[edit]

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

Very well-formatted article, with plenty of sources (though they are offline and cannot be verified) and a lot of information. However I doubt very much that this person meets our notability criteria so it fails WP:N. Secondly the sources are unverifiable so it fails WP:V as well. My main concerns are that when I tried to find some sources in Google nothing substantial came up. More importantly, I have a strong suspicion that the article's author has a WP:COI with the article's subject and is seemingly related to him (as can be inferred from his username). If someone can provide or quote reliable sources indicating why he is notable I'd be happy to withdraw. Maashatra11 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not doubting any of the above, but it' a good bio worth keeping. There's plenty of crap to be weeded without attacking well-done bios of characters of marginal notability. I know that's not regarded as a legitimate defense in these debates, but it's a fact. Use the notability challenges wisely, friends... Carrite (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not really a reason to keep. It's just an inclusionist point of view. You're simply using the WP:NOHARM argument without addressing the concerns. Maashatra11 (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I freely admit this. Given the rules of Wikipedia, once this article hits this page, it's probably going to be destroyed. Why? For what positive end? Use the chainsaw wisely... Carrite (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The positive end of this discussion is that wikipedia will hopefully fulfill its purpose of being an encyclopedia. There's no need for unencyclopedic content here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - nothing else to add here. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, it's frustrating that "Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia" is regarded as a good argument, while "Wikipedia is full of crap 50x worse than this and we should concentrate on that" is regarded as an invalid argument. But, for the sake of argument, I'll pick up the gauntlet... Carrite (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a good idea to over-use arguments to avoid in deletion discussions such as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and others. Anyway, if it's your wish, so be it. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These notability debates each have an underlying theme: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must not pollute the encyclopedia." That's the ultimate over-used argument, actually. That's fine, I agree with the premise, as long as we're actually attacking the pollution, rather than well-done decent bios of borderline individuals like this one. The chances of a non-Romanian speaker defending this challenge are near nil. I accept that. The point is, this challenge was a waste of time from the get-go. The inclusion hurts nothing, the deletion subtracts from our knowledge base. And there are tons and tons and tons of articles out there which ARE bringing the Wikipedia project down, let there be no mistake. Carrite (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's see if we can get this fellow over the notability bar, shall we? Here's something: Ioan Dimancescu was featured as a character in The War in Romania series. Carrite (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Dimancescu again, but my Romanian is rusty and it's a blog, and god knows the world will end if we use an extensive blog article as evidence of notability in one of these Takes Self Too Serioiusly notability challenges... Carrite (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our comrades at Romanian Wikipedia believe Demancescu to be notable... See? Carrite (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the English WP article is a straight translation of the Romanian WP article, I note... Carrite (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Carrite, but the blog is Mr. Alin Dimancescu's work, the same author of our pretty article. And the Romanian article too. And given the film credits names, it seems the Dimancescu's family as a whole and not only Alin are very much involved in keeping memory of their lovely ancestor...Maashatra11 (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a family member is no bar to writing a WP article on a topic, only that one needs to look closely for POV writing... Anyway... Here is evidence that Dimancescu qualifies under Sports notability rules: He was part of the Romanian delegation at the Inter-Allied Games (Paris, 1919)[2], being a component of the rugby team at the first matches registered in the official record of the national team. (Source: Nicu Alexe și colectiv, Enciclopedia Educației Fizice și Sportului din România, Editura Aramis, București, 2002). That's independent evidence that he was a member of a National Team which participated in international competition... Carrite (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still non-notable per WP:NSPORT. Maashatra11 (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, here we go, significance of Inter-Allied Games: The inter-allied games, Paris, 22nd June to 6th July, 1919; (1919)... But, like I say, this article was a goner as soon as it made this page, because too many people consider Notability some sort of Talmudic sacred doctrine, rather than a somewhat flexible guideline for appropriateness of inclusions... Whatever... Carrite (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Carrite. Otherstuffexists is not a sufficient argument, but it should not be dismissed when it supports a cogent argument, as here.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see how being a participant of the Inter-Allied Games is enough to be considered notable. However I can't argue if you like to think so. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is sufficient to reflect notability, and that argument is bolstered by otherstuffexists, which is appropriate to consider as part of an argument in favor of keeping (though not as the only reason). IDONTLIKEIT of course goes both ways, and isn't a reason to delete in the face of sufficient RS coverage and similar articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that I didn't like it. You better read my deletion rationale. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I "better"? Or what? You "better" find a more civil way to make a suggestion.

I read what you wrote. You indicated that there are plenty of sources. Great. That they are offline and cannot be verified -- though you fail to mention the importance/relevance of this. You say there is a lot of information. Great. You say you "doubt very much that this person meets our notability criteria so it fails WP:N." Why do you doubt it? And why does it fail WP:N on the basis of you having a "doubt"? You say that the sources are unverifiable so it fails WP:V as well. That's wrong. Why are the sources unverifiable? There is no requirement that they be on-line. Or in your library in Kalamazoo, or wherever you are. You write "My main concerns are that when I tried to find some sources in Google nothing substantial came up." It doesn't have to. Verifiability is not contingent upon google search results (though that would simplify these discussions). You also write "More importantly, I have a strong suspicion that the article's author has a WP:COI". You "better" read WP:COI -- that's reason to look carefully at the matter, but bears not a bit in the notability consideration.

"You better" read up on AGF and on not biting the newbies ... Before you get smacked across the face with a very large TROUT.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Maashatra11 (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to all trout suggestions. You already suggested me (or threatened) one if I recall, so no problem. You can give me one. Thanks. Maashatra11 (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everybody! I am o rookie on wiki and I am also the grandson of Ioan Dem Dimancescu. I have nothing to cover, this is why I signed with my real name. I know wiki policies about the notability. Please take into account for your judgment the following: 1. Romanian sources on Internet are very poor, even recent events are not so well covered 2. my off-line sources are credible, part of them (press clipping) are scanned and grouped on Dimancescu's Collection external link; rest of sources represent a Sports Enciclopedia, a National Radio Archieve review, an on-line edition of the Interallied Games - Paris etc. 3. I think that the simple fact that the biggest Scouts Center in Romania (please check on scout.ro) took his name is a clear recognition of his constant contribution to the Romanian Scouts development from the first moment up before WW2 when the the movement was banned; 4. I am trying to close the gap about the wiki info, this is why I put some links to unexisting pages (if I have the chance, I can came up later with info), but is somehow natural to start with my grandfather's profile (even if wiki has no "emotions"). Please take into account that in Romania (after '89) we are trying to rediscover our history (facts & people) through personal efforts (mainly).

Thank you for reading the above and hope that is enough for my cause! Alin Dimancescu (talk) 06:40, 4 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) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civilian Demo[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and I can find no significant third-party coverage of this release. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and created by a sock. Nowyouseeme talk2me 18:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 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. Nominator indef blocked, no other delete votes NW (Talk) 18:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pedobear[edit]

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

Just another 4chan meme, not worthy of a seperate article and is just forumcruft. ☭FryPod 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly Weak Keep – Seems to have a bit of coverage. Refs: [15] [16] [17] [18] "Pedobear, a pop-culture symbol denoting pedophilia" --Odie5533 (talk) 17:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources Odie5533 found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, not just another 4chan meme. Memes don't normally have that many 3rd party sources or reach outside of 4chan intself. Then again, not the most notable of subjects for an article. Jolly Ω Janner 18:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. - Interesting article and notability seems well documented. Carrite (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Btw, I've added the references indicated by Odie above, as well as some content from them. --Waldir ^talk 02:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In current form has sufficient sources to merit own page or at the very least a merge. CooperDB (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, eminently notable (not to mention irresistibly adorably cute and cuddly). Tisane ^talk/_stalk 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Tisane. 62.255.248.225 (talk) 09:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to pass notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:38, 7 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. — The Earwig ^(talk) 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Colored Glasses (album)[edit]

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

It is not clear why this album is notable per WP:NALBUMS. Thought it claims several chart achievements its not sourced. It also claims three singles were released but again this is not sourced. In fact the article provides zero sources all together. WP:NALBUMS clearly states that where the information about an album is mainly just a tracklisting such pages should not be independently created. I see no reason why this shouldn't be redirected to artist's page John Conlee. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and trout nominator. Clearly didn't do a WP:BEFORE here; I found four sources and added them without really trying. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per TenPoundHammer. Nowyouseeme talk2me 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why people don't address these issues when they see the tags. If an admin is available and if it is possible I'd like to ask the AfD to be closed because someone has made the article more noteable. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:31, 3 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) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mahinda Pathegama[edit]

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

Scientist who appears not to pass WP:PROF. Additionally, there are no reliable third-party sources and Google news archive provides only two trivial mentions of him. This article was prodded in May but the prod was disputed. The article appears to be under dispute; along with the sub-stub nominated version [19] there is also a much longer version preferred by one editor [20] but it is no better at providing a convincing claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- Favonian (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Google Scholar gives very few hits, and it doesn't look like there is evidence of meeting any of the other criteria of WP:PROF. There are some hits on Google Web search, but apart from the self-published stuff, it's mostly peripheral, like this one. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Web of Science list 1 (one) article, never cited. Google Scholar lists 6 publications, cited a grand total of 2 (two) times. Obviously does not meet WP:PROF. Perhaps that some of the newspaper sources may pass WP:BIO, but as they all seem to be about his scientific accomplishments (which basically seem to have gone unnoticed up till now), I strongly doubt that. --Crusio (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources, no notability. End of. Ironholds (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The edit warring in this article has started around July 14. I found out that the emergence of the reports claiming he has committed intellectual property thefts coincide with this. Here is a Sinhala language report dated July 16. The heading reads New inventions commissioner maraud intellectual properties. Seems like this incident has ensued the edit warring. I think this edit sums it up. I will investigate further on this. But I am optimistic that we can salvage the article.--Chanaka L (talk) 16:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very little citability of his academic work, does not pass WP:PROF. GoogleNews also turns up very little, so it looks unlikely that the subject passes WP:BIO. The edit war mentioned above indicates potential BLP issues; in cases of marginal notability this gives an extra impetus towards deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 17:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP issues. I've had had enough of these POV pushing. From the beginning I assumed GF and believe we can bring it within NPOV by writing it with RS. I tried to the resolve the dispute, but the edit-warring kept going. Then I tried to keep it as it is, by reverting vandals, requesting page protection and reporting one POV pusher. Then one peanut-brained resort to ROFLable PA against me. But I still persist with AGF and I improved the article from Ironholds' version to a level at least it might have a chance. But again another POV pusher have come along and copy/pasted a section from Muttiah Muralitharan#University of South Australia study. I believe this will exhaust any good Wikipedian's patience when one worked amidst of personnel attacks. I doubt even the article survived the AfD, we won't be able to keep them at bay. At minimum pending changes have to be implemented.--Chanaka L (talk) 04:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "copy/paste" from Muttiah Muralitharan#University of South Australia study is in fact the same information from the same source, written in a more detailed form. I don't believe it can be classified as "POV Pushing". The page's current state contains all-referenced material and confines to WP:NPOV. It should simply be protected from vandalism and the addition of unverified/false/irrelevant information. Referring to a previous comment, this "edit warring" appears to have started with the release of one newspaper article with allegations against him, but there happens to be a newer one which shows a number of allegations in the previous were incorrect (Here). From this evidence, this "edit warring" seems to have started on the basis of poorly presented views and accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.135.95.181 (talk) 21:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fontaine[edit]

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

Unimportant actress who fails WP:N. Hasn't stared in one important movie. Article is copied from her website. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio. ☭FryPod 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete even if not a copyvio, there's no notability here that I can see. All roles appear to be very minor micro-indie productions, and the one she claims is a "starring" role is a short with not even the 5 votes on IMDB needed to give it a rating. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how it is not a copyvio if it is ripped straight out of a website article. ☭FryPod 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misinterpreted the comment by Andrew Lenahan. I concur that the immediate result here should be SPEEDY DELETE as A7/COPYVIO. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No longer a copyvio, but she still doesn't appear to pass WP:BIO. IMDb comes up with only very small roles, not to mention the article is written like a press release. The creator also hasn't been on Wikipedia in over two years. Erpert (let's talk about it) 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to make it prettier and even learned that one of the films she was in (Look (film)) actually has a Wikipedia article... and though some of her roles do appear to be lead roles and might push at WP:ENT, after my going through the 99 "Jennifer Fontaine" results afforded by THIS search, I found one 2006 silver award from WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival for a film she produced in 2005, and only a very few mentions of her in regards other folks being in her film Stealth... but nothing substantive that would support a BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 18:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In full agreement with nominator's reasoning Vartanza (talk) 20:41, 8 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. Nominator indef blocked, no other delete votes NW (Talk) 18:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Titstorm[edit]

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

There are hundreds of operations made by Anonymous, and hardly any of them, with the exception of Project Chanilogy, are notable. I feel this article just gives recognition to a bunch of trolls and violates WP:NOT and rather just promotes their intentions. ☭FryPod 15:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well whether or not it gives recognition to trolls of people you don't like is irrelevent. It appears to have a lot of third party sources, although I would say it is a fairly unotable event and has a heavy weighting of online sources due to its very nature. Jolly Ω Janner 15:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The amount of sources shows that it received significant enough coverage to warrant an article. Jenks24 (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jenks24. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - alas, whether we like it or not, notability is demonstrated by the sources. Frank | talk 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This received a lot of coverage in reliable sources. The article does a good job of presenting that coverage in a neutral way. The subject is notable and the article does not violate any policies. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSignificant worldwide coverage. Although notability is not temporary, there is even a little ongoing coverage with a mention in Time. The government being attacked (regardless if it was cyber based and who perpetrated it) is a notable event that even received an official response. This article is also part of multiple topics and not just Anonymous. Internet legislation, real wold demonstrations (although tiny), computer crime, and so on. As the editor who created it, I made an effort to not make it overly pushy or scandalous. I think I was successful at not glorifying trolls. I was going to create an article for the follow-up IRL demonstrations but they were so not notable on their own that I merged it in. It was even rated B class by another editor but was downgraded since the lead was too short (I just expanded it). Google scholar shows a result. Academics from the University of Nebraska at Omaha included it in a presentation and paper. Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, there are reliable sources, the article is well-written and neutral in tone. And Wikipedia is not censored. Jimmy Pitt talk 12:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above. -Welhaven (talk) 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable , well sourced, numerous articles used as references. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:23, 6 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) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Mulhall[edit]

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

Unsourced article, unclear notability. Maashatra11 (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 20:48, 4 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 An article on this topic has already been merged once. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PURE:FM[edit]

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

non-notable student radio station. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since no sources are presented to demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, and it is not a licensed broadcast station, but just a student internet radio operation. An alternative would be a slight merge (Smerge) of a sentence or two to the "Student activities" section of University of Portsmouth. No extensive listing of everyone who was ever a functionary in the station's operation should be included, nor should the text include a listing of programming, per WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge As the station is neither a significant radio station nor an FM licensed station feeding additional information into the already existing entry in the "Student activities" section of University of Portsmouth should be sufficient. Information about founding year, notable achievements, notable associations and notable alumni would be worth adding. Agree with Edison on this being in accordance with WP:NOT. Thegermanbloke (talk) 22:34, 7 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 Redirects are not for things that fail V. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Jellyfish[edit]

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

Also listing:

The prepubescent musical activities of even a notable musician are not notable in themselves. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article on Claudio Sanchez can have a section on his childhood, but his non-notable bands do not need their own articles. VQuakr (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. All articles should be nominated separately. Please relist those you have included in this nomination for Sexual Jellyfish. Cindamuse (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should they all be listed separately when they are all about the same topic (bands that a particular artist formed in his youth before he had achieved any notability)? All four articles were created by the same author, within a span of about an hour, and all are equally non-notable. Creating separate discussions would only complicate matters. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. I didn't realize they were essentially all the same topic. I've stricken my comment. Cindamuse (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - Each of these little articles is made up of un-encyclopedic fan tidbits. All we really need to know is that they were part of the personal history of Claudio Sanchez and are already mentioned at his article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Claudio Sanchez and include a single line about them there. Redirects are cheap. Jujutacular ^talk 00:48, 10 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. Noting that nominator cast an additional !vote. Jujutacular ^talk 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Charm[edit]

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

Reason WP:SPIP http://theartofcharm.com/the-art-of-charm-on-wikipedia/

Screwball23 talk 06:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, weakly. Note that this is about a New York and Los Angeles based service company specializing in dating coaching for men and women. It does have some coverage in reliable sources, but those would appear to be mostly human interest stories that do not establish that this business has enough historical, technical, or cultural significance to achieve long term historical notability. The sources seem rather inflated, and many are local access TV shows and commercial sites of various sorts, suggesting puffery. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön) and as a likely paid advert. Them From Space 16:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Ihcoyc. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: obvious ad, not enough to create notability. Dewritech (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page has violated several key features of Wikipedia, including notability, Neutral-Point-of-View (NPOV), and long-term significance. I find it especially disingenious for Wikipedia to leave this article because it serves no value to anyone other than the company, which has paid to have the article edited in their favor. For that reason, as a self-promotional article, it should be deleted.--Screwball23 talk 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had already listed and deleted two of the key people (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Harbinger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Dzubak), and this one is no better. Non-notable paid advert. Fails WP:CORP. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:52, 9 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 Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lederer[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Notability (people) - further discussion below. JohnInDC (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator):

The subject fails to meet the notability requirements set forth at WP:Notability (people) or WP:Author. In response to a proposed deletion, the article’s author offered several articles in support of notability on the subject article’s Talk page (some cited only on the related pages Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore and Mundo Overloadus) and I have (I think) evaluated them all, as follows. I’ve also made my own (not exhaustive but honest) attempt to find other sources in support of notability of the subject, the book and the play, and failed. (E.g., Google searches on “Michael Lederer” paired with the name of the book or play turn up little more than these articles or derivatives.)

In short, the subject is the son of a notable person, he has written a book and a play, and wrote (part of) and acted in a film that shared an award of indeterminate import in Poland. Those are not small achievements yet none of them have translated into any discernable third party coverage or, in turn, notability. (I anticipate offering up the other two articles for deletion soon – I don’t do so here because the analysis of each might be a bit different, and given the suggestion at WP:AFD generally not to lump different articles together if there’s any doubt.)

London's Evening Standard (February 1989) (could not locate article). As described in the subject article, this news article concerned the preservation of the ruins of a theater in London, and quoted the subject in passing.

New York Times (June 1998) [21] Obituary of subject’s (notable) father, Ivo John Lederer. Subject mentioned in passing.

Who is Who in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Could not locate entry. I am skeptical of any claim to notability based on the existence of a Who’s Who entry.

The French literary review Remanences, volume 16 (May 2001). Cited in this related article. Cannot locate original article; all Google references to “Remances Michael Lederer” lead back to Wikipedia or variants.

The National Museum of Poland at Szczcin, where a film, Las Venice, involving Lederer as author in some capacity and as actor is said to have been co-winner of the 2005 Baltic Biennale. Cited at here, link to the Museum here. I cannot confirm the award (I don’t speak Polish) and award is of indeterminate significance.

UK's Poetry Society [22] and The Londonist Book Grocer [23] merely note subject’s play – a staged reading, not performance - in a list of weekend events.

PS122 theater link, [24] merely notes that subject’s play will be performed in September 2010.

Subject sits on the board of Safe Haven Museum, which he co-founded in Oswego, NY. Museum itself is of uncertain notability and this position has entailed no discernable coverage.

Reviews of Lederer’s performances in the South China Morning Post, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News – cannot find these articles or evidence of them.

“The Land” website interview [25] is not not an independent source.

JohnInDC (talk) 13:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep -Publications indicate sufficient achievement to merit inclusion, I think. There is enough useful biographical information here that we should tread lightly... Carrite (talk) 14:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Let me disclose that I wrote the original article re: Michael Lederer. I did not base his inclusion in Wikipedia on any one factor among those enumerated above by JohninDC. I agree with him that any one of those taken alone may not merit inclusion under notability requirements as set forth in WP:Notability (people). But taken together, the aggregate forms a body of recognized work that is of sufficient interest to merit inclusion. Please consider:

PS122 theatre link, [26] notes that Lederer's play Mundo Overloadus will be performed in September 2010. PS122 is an important theatre in Manhattan. A quick search of the Web will disclose numerous references to it in the New York Times, Village Voice, and countless other publications of note. That theatre's own verification that Lederer's play is about to be presented at the same venue now also hosting the famed Wooster Group and Mabou Mines demonstrates that his is "a substantial part of a significant exhibition" as set forth under Wikipedia's Notability Guidelins for Creative Professionals. User Carrite, above, notes that "we should tread lightly." To delete mention of this writer one month before his play is staged at such an important theatre, already notable, seems ill advised.

JohninDC writes above that "New York Times (June 1998) [27] Obituary of subject’s (notable) father, Ivo John Lederer. Subject mentioned in passing." A look at that NYT article reveals that Michael Lederer is mentioned in the context of being a writer and editor.

Another reason JohninDC promotes for deleting the article on Michael Lederer is that "UK's Poetry Society [28] and The Londonist Book Grocer [29] merely note subject’s play – a staged reading, not performance - in a list of weekend events." The UK Poetry Society's verification that Lederer's play Mundo Overloadus was developed in London prior to opening at New York City's PS122 confirms this writer is of notable interest on both sides of the Atlantic.

Further to that, JohninDC writes "London's Evening Standard (February 1989) (could not locate article). As described in the subject article, this news article concerned the preservation of the ruins of a theater in London, and quoted the subject in passing." That article, in London's largest circulation paper, was not describing just any theatre. The Rose was the first Elizabethan-era theatre ever unearthed. The article cited was specific: Evening Standard, 14 February 1989. That article was published just before The Evening Standard began to archive its articles in an online database. I have a copy of that article but do not know how to post a copy of it to assuage JohninDC's misgivings. If somebody can please tell me how and where to present such evidence, I will be grateful. It was THE article announcing the discovery of the theatre where the young Shakespeare began his career, alerting the public to its threatened destruction by real estate developers, and it quoted Michael Lederer as "An American scholar on site" who was calling on the public to rally to the theatre's defense. The public did respond in an immediate and verifiably documented struggle, leading to those development plans being ammended, the theatre's ruins being saved and preserved (as they are today), and also leadiing directly to strict UK laws requiring archaeological survey be conducted prior to any major construction. The lasting and significant effects of Lederer's call to action are of sufficient interest under Wikipedia guidelines for Academics, which note: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Nobody I think will be able to produce any earlier mention of the discovery of the Rose, confirming that Lederer's on-site role in publicizing and thus saving it was notable.

JohninDC dismisses Lederer's role as a co-founder of Safe Haven Museum in Oswego, NY, calling that museum "of uncertain notability." The museum ( http://www.oswegohaven.org/ ) documents the only group of Jewish refugees to be admitted into the United States during World War II, who were subsequently interred for the war's duration at a refugee camp in Oswego, the site of the museum. It is a story told in the film Haven with Natasha Richardson, and here in a Charlie Rose interview with fellow museum co-founder Ruth Gruber ( http://wejew.com/media/5293/Ruth_Gruber_Story_Haven_Interview_on_Charlie_Rose/ ). That group of refugees included Michael Lederer's father Ivo Lederer, and his grandparents, but I did not include mention of Michael Lederer's connection to the museum on the grounds of his family relationships, but because of his role as a documented co-founder of a museum that is notable under Wikipedia guidelines, and for anyone interested in the subject of 20th century Jewish immigration to America esp. touching on WW II.

JohninDC begins his case for deletion with the statement "the subject is the son of a notable person, he has written a book and a play, and wrote (part of) and acted in a film that shared an award of indeterminate import in Poland." The book in question, Nothing Lasts Forever Anymore (Barcelona: Parsifal, 1999 / ISBN 84-8725-98-7) was published in Spain by a small, prestigious (if non-commercial) publsiher of 20th century avant-garde writers. It was published in both an English edition, and also in Spanish translation (ISBN 84-8725-99-5) as Ya Nada Dura Eternamente ( http://www.unilibro.es/find_buy_es/libro/parsifal_ediciones/ya_nada_dura_eternamente.asp?sku=476970&idaff=0Full / http://www.unilibro.es/find_buy_es/result_editori_id.asp?editore=5125&id_aff= ). I find it hard to argue that not having information about such a book would serve Wikipedia's aims better than having information about it.

I wanted to reference here some of JohninDC's notes made on the Michael Lederer discussion page, but he has deleted his own comments there, as well as edited mine. I have the disadvantage of being quite new to Wikipedia. I did not think that one could erase a page's history like that. I thought all we write is "indelible," and am sorry I cannot see his original arguments anymore, and mine to him as they were written. My comments on that page seem out of context without reference to his comments that initiated them.

JohninDC also dismisses Michael Lederer's role in co-writing and acting in the film Las Venice, which was presented 2005 at the National Museum of Contemporary Art in Szczecin, Poland. (www.muzeum.szczecin.pl) It was through that project that I became familiar with Lederer's work, when it was also presented at the Volksbühne Prater theatre here in Berlin. As I note on the discussion page for Michael Lederer, I came to Berlin after Harvard as a Fulbright scholar working with leading theatres in Germany, and am now doing a Ph.D. in Comparative Cinema and Media Studies at the University of Chicago. I am not in the business of promoting Michael Lederer or his work. I am, however, in the business of chronicling it as I consider him a likely subject te be included in my dissertation. Above all I am in the business of analyzing his work, though I realize Wikipedia is not the place in which to do that, so kept what I wrote about him to the facts.

JohninDC also writes: "The French literary review Remanences, volume 16 (May 2001). Cited in this related article. Cannot locate original article; all Google references to “Remances Michael Lederer” lead back to Wikipedia or variants." As with the Evening Standard article, I have a copy of this journal, and if someone can please tell me how to submit relevant pages so they can be a part of this dicussion I would be grateful. Because something is in print but not online should not exclude it from providing some supporting evidence.

I do not make the case that Michael Lederer is famous. Or that his impact has yet been enormous. But he has made an impact. In many places, many times.

Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines state that "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary." Michael Lederer's documented achievements spanning the years and places noted above indicate he is of sufficient interest to warrant information about him being made available to those who seek it on Wikipedia. ˜˜˜˜ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have nothing to add to my original entry other than to observe that I don't dispute the facts of his life, but instead the claim that his professional output (i.e., a non-notable book, a non-notable play and some measure of contribution to an independent film) plus an assortment of media mentions establish him as notable. To all appearances Lederer has led an interesting life full of wonderful personal achievements - in his mid-50s he has a lot to be proud of - but I don't see how any of that sets him apart from millions of other people who have enjoyed career success somewhere above the norm. Also, for the record, I have not tinkered with any page histories or edited anyone's comments in the course of this discussion. Virtually all I've had to say on this subject (other than on this page) can be found on my own Talk page, here, and a review of that page history will show no nefarious edits. I suspect that Soupy123456789 simply forgot to check back there. JohnInDC (talk) 11:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - JohninDC states his personal opinon as fact when he describes Lederer's output as "non-notable." It would be better for him to frame that as "I believe that..." I will do just that here: I believe it is not true that "millions of other people," as JohninDC puts it, have had novels published in two languages and had a hand in saving a theatre as important as The Rose and had a play they've written accepted for production at a theatre as prominent as PS122 in NYC. That theatre, on its own website (http://www.ps122.org/performances/mundo_overloadus.html ), describes Lederer as "an éminence grise of his generation." The term means one who has wielded power and influence under the radar screen. Lederer has emerged often enough from beneath the radar to warrant our attention. Wikipedians are better served by having access, should they seek it, to this compacted information about him vs. not having such access. To reiterate, the guideline calls for him to be "interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention," it does not say "famous enough." (I'm sorry, I would like to sign this properly but my computer does not seem capable of making the four tildes in a way to do it, so again I have to sign manually) - Soupy123456789, 5 August 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just added to the article being questioned information about the museum Lederer co-founded and helps guide. I will also note here something I would never add to the article itself, namely mention of the website for his play Mundo Overloadus ( http://www.mundooverloadus.com/ ) which includes a link to a statement he offers About Mundo. Lederer's perspective described there hints at some of the reasons this writer is considering him a likely subject to be treated in my Ph.D. dissertation. He spans worlds old and new, belonging to neither and yet both at the same time, in a way that has particular relevance to Berlin, and I predict to theatre in general. - Soupy123456789, 8 August 2010.

Comment - I think the article's taking on a bit too much ballast with the inclusion of still further details of Lederer's life that appear in no third party source whatsoever, and have returned to it to pare the thing down to a more approrpriate, and sourceable, scope. Information known personally by a single Wikipedia editor researching the subject of a PhD dissertation is not, I don't think, sufficient to that end. JohnInDC (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Someone please help a newcomer, not with my arguments, that's a separate question, but with the process. JohninDC has taken this discussion off this page, and made severe edits to the article in quesiton leading not just to serious ommissions, but to outright mistakes, only two of which I mention below. I apologize that these next comments are so long. In response to those draconian edits made today, I am responding to this from an airport lounge while in transit, not from a cool headed office where I could have and would have responded more compactly. I am just going to cut and paste here comments that I just posted on JohninDC's talk page. I highlight only two of the mistakes that he made today, and ask him, and anyone else reading this, to please consider if whether in the event he made these mistakes, he is also making others in his assumptions, and in his actions by editing before the review process unfolds. Here are my comments as I wrott them on his talk page: To JohninDC - I'm sorry, but you are using language that sounds reasoned, at the same time as you are not only claiming, but doing, things that are not reasonable. For instance, today you took it on yourself to make such radical edits to the article about Lederer, that it now reads "Lederer co-founded of [sic] Safe Haven museum." And as you've rewritten it, you now have it say that Ivo Lederer was Michael Lederer's grandfather, not father. You are acting swiftly, and with a passion, even vehemence, that I cannot understand. You may have a great deal more experience at Wikipedia than I have, but unless I missunderstand the systerm that does not make you a Wikigod. It is you who proposed this article for deletion, which is fair enough. But you are not waiting for the process to unfold, so that others, not you, not me, can judge it for themselves - objectively on its merits. What is the point of submitting it for arbitration if you are taking the chain saw to it before the powers-that-be weigh in? I ask you also, Wikipedia guidelines state "Please do not bite the newcomer." But you are biting indeed, and rather savagely. We have exchanged comments for nearly a week, and I believed that the article would stand until an objective review. Could you not wait for the arbitration that you yourself requested? In your rush to judgement, you are deleting and rewriting whole portions, and you are making many mistakes. By not conducting our back and forth on the discussion page, but by taking it live to the article itself, you do not allow me the polite chance to respond thoughtfully, and carefully. As I write this, for example, I am in transit responding from an airport lounge. The discussion page would allow this back and forth without such urgency. I will provide reliable documentary evidence to support every single word I have written, but I literally cannot do it "on the fly" like this. As well as making errors in both grammar and facts as noted above, here are just two examples of the missclaims you have made. You write that: "I [JohninDC] removed, as implausible, the claim that he [Lederer] was an original member of of TheatreWorks (Silicon Valley), which was founded in 1970, when Lederer was 14." That is a polite way of calling it a lie, or at the least a mistake, on my part. The very first production by TheatreWorks in 1970 was Brecht's The Trial of Lucullus. Michael Lederer played Lucullus. TheatreWorks began that year as a youth workshop, then swiftly grew over the years into one of the most successful theatres in California. Again, this catches me in transit and I can't submit documents from here, but I can easily document ThearteWorks' leading position, and Lederer's leading role there over the years, once I get back to my home office. I asked for your help in understanding how best to submit those articles, and you did write...but then before I have had a chance to act on your advice, you made those cuts. Even though I had written you earlier to say I would submit a good deal of supporting evience. You decided beforehand that the evidence is not worthy. That is a reaonable process?? However awkwardly, from this airport, just to prove how far TheatreWorks came from that earliest day with Lederer on its youthful stage, and through his many leading adult roles throughout the 80s as that theatre grew, here is a YouTube video of this year's Tony Award ceremony with the winner for Best Musical thanking TheatreWorks directly since it is was at htat theatre where the show Memphis began: http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1452266302571&ref=share . Long after his role as I accurately described it as "an origianl member of TheatreWorks", Lederer went on to play Cyrano in Cyrano de Bergerac there in 1983, and so many other leading roles, but to find any mention of those other roles now someone will have to look at an earlier version of the article, because rather than wait for the supporting evidence I told you I would like to submit, you took it on yourself to cut out mention of them. You also state, with a full voice, that you removed from the article about Lederer any reference to the 2001 film Haven, "finding no mention of it." This is another example of why, JohninDC, you should let others cross-check facts in the article rather than taking it on yourself to single handedly decide what should stay in (nothing, according to you) and what should be jettisoned (everything, according to you, starting now and not after some inconvenient review). Neither Lederer's role at TheatreWorks nor his hand in founding Safe Haven museum would in themselves make him notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, I don't argue that. But they are contributing factors, and you negate both. (As you do his role vis a vis the Rose theatre, which I don't have the chance to address in this comment. But as proof that you are rushing to judgment, I can offer here a few eliable, documented, indisputable references to the fact that the 2001 film Haven does chronicle the story of a small band of 982 Jewish refugees that included Michael Lederer's father and grandparents, and the fact that that film told the notable story of the only such group of Jews admitted into the US from Europe during WW II. Michael Lederer later co-founded the Safe Haven museum to document that event, and helps guide it as a member of their board, and it is not for you, but for an objective review to decide whether that is to be considered "notable." Here are a few huried citations to dispute your insistence that the film Haven is not to be found, and / or has nothing to do with the museum Lederer co-founded: Here once again is the New York Times obituary for Michael Lederer's father, confirming he was a member of that small group of refugees interred at Oswego: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/06/25/world/ivo-john-lederer-a-scholar-of-eastern-europe-is-dead-at-68.html Please read the article and see the mention of Michael Lederer as writer and editor. You might well believe that such a mention in NYT in such a context is not notable, but why not leave it to others at Wikipedia to decide that for themselves? Here is the website for the museum:http://www.oswegohaven.org/ If you click on the Voices link on that site you can listen to the interview with Lederer's father. I offer that only to demonstrate the personal bridge to his work at the museum. Here is the Wikipedia article for Ruth Gruber, the woman who led those refugees from Europe to Oswego and who is the basis for the main character in the film Haven, played by Natasha Richardson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Gruber (I had no hand in writing this article, so please, JohninDC, don't brutalize it. That woman seems to deserve what has been written about her by others. Here is a Charlie Rose interview with Ruth Gruber about the film Haven:http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/3262 I offered that evidence to you before, proving the film's connection to the museum (so you would not think the museum itself not notable), but you still claimed no evidence of the film with Natahsa Richardson and Anne Bancroft. Here is the IMDB site describing the movie, again confirming the fact that it is about the story told by Safe Haven museum: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250862/ And finally (my flight will board soon, and this is all I can manage from here - this is all longwinded but you ask for documentation and I'm rushing to provide it) here is the Barnes and Noble site where the film is sold, with an accompanying description of the film: http://video.barnesandnoble.com/DVD/Haven/Natasha-Richardson/e/786936301267 Their description: "Editorial Reviews An American journalist takes on the dangerous responsibility of rescuing nearly a thousand refugees from a Nazi concentration camp in this two-part made-for-TV movie based on a true story. In the early days of America's involvement in World War II, Ruth Gruber (Natasha Richardson) is a reporter who has been giving particular attention to a recent story: President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in violation of United States policies of the day, has announced he will grant asylum in America to 982 European refugees from Nazi labor camps. But someone needs to escort the prisoners to the U.S.; Gruber, of European ancestry and Jewish faith, volunteers for the assignment over the objections of her parents (Anne Bancroft and Martin Landau). Gruber travels to Italy on behalf of Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes (Hal Holbrook), where she helps the refugees board the U.S.S. Henry Gibbins. But Gruber discovers that the American sailors manning the ship regard their passengers as little better than their Nazi jailers, and the State Department declares, upon their arrival in the United States, that all the refugees are to be housed in a camp in Oswego, NY -- even those who have families willing to sponsor them in America. Gruber realizes her work with the refugees is far from done, and she bravely battles against both bureaucracy and prejudice to win both dignity and fair treatment for the new settlers. Haven was originally broadcast on the CBS television network on February 11 and 14, 2001. Mark Deming, All Movie Guide" I offer all that longwinded evidence just to show you two examples whre you rushed to judgement and erred. There are many other sources you have missed in your "careful fact checking" and I will submit it to this page as soon as I can. Because it is this discussion page, rather than live edits to the article in question, that I believe is the appropriate place for you to question points made, and for me or others to support them. This began as a civil exchange, but on your side the extreme edits you made seemed to devolve into an attack. This newcomer wants to ask whoever reads this: is Wikipedia a one man operation, and is that man's name JohninDC ?? In the next day or so I will reinstate parts of this and other articles that you have cut away, and offer the evidence I can following your own suggestion in an earlier comment. In the meantime, why don't you please wait and let the process that you yourself intitiated unfold? Let others decide. You accuse me of "personal assessments" and - what did you write (I'm too blearly eyed to find it now) something about "bloviating" or something along those lines? You have made rash judgements, executed swift cuts carelessly, and without due regard for the process. Your own personal assessments you take to be fact. As you see from the two examples above, Lederer's early role at TheatreWorks and the fact of existence of the film Haven, as smart and articulate as you are you are capable of a rush to judgement, and making mistakes. I want to please ask wiser Wikipedians than I (or you) to help this unfold in a process, not to be decided by one man, or one woman. - Soupy123456789, 8 August 2010

Comment - This seems to be spiraling well out of hand and it would be very helpful if another editor would weigh in with their views on notability, reliable sourcing, original research, and the various other policies that are implicated here. In the meantime, other than the copyedit errors pointed out above (which I've fixed), I stand by my edits paring down the article. JohnInDC (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment The minimal threshold for a stand alone article is significant coverage in reliable third party sources. PS122 site as the host of the event is not an independant third party. Mention of the subject's occupation in an obituary about his father is not significant coverage. Being related to notable people is not individual notability. I do not have time to go through more right now, but am not seeing anything so far that meets the criteria. Active Banana (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No substantial coverage in WP:RS, plenty for the scientist, an athlete, a property developer of the same name. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:CREATIVE. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting life, perhaps, but no evidence that he passes our threshold of notability in any field. If his plays do well, then perhaps we will change our minds; there is no deadline here, and we have no obligation whatsoever to preserve this article so that he will have more publicity "one month before his play is staged ". Many of the keep arguments made boil down to his association with notable topics; but as we must constantly emphasize, notability is neither contagious nor inherited.
Delete - lack of notable coverage in reliable secondary sources.Jarhed (talk) 21:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I am sorry my last comments were so long. The article in question has been edited down and only presents verifiable facts. I have added a description of Lederer's book by Kitty Carlisle Hart. The cover of that book includes her published recommendation for it, and a photo of that cover can be seen at the end of Lederer's interview here: https://theland.wikispaces.com/Michael+Lederer Such a strong recommendation by such an important figure must be taken into account. The subject is not famous but is notable. The article as it reads demonstrates that. I will end my contributions to this discussion by saying again that I agree with user Carrite above, who noted "Publications indicate sufficient achievement to merit inclusion, I think. There is enough useful biographical information here that we should tread lightly." - Soupy 123456789, 10 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soupy123456789 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It should be noted that, per this article's author, Kitty Carlisle Hart was a family friend (albeit an unsourced one). See this diff and this link. JohnInDC (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - JohninDC is consistently denuding this article, so that others, such as those who indicated "Delete" above, are not having the chance to base their evaluations on the whole material. He cuts it down to a point where even I would agree to delete. His is a campaign, not a serious effort to invite others to look at the supporting facts for notability and decide for themselves. He is deciding for all. --Soupy123456789 (talk) 12:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My own searches show insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet notability guidelines. --AndrewHowse (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Done the same as Andrew and came up with nothing. The article fails already on WP:RS whether the subject is well known or not.--Kudpung (talk) 13:36, 10 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) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological censorship[edit]

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

The subject of the article fails the general notability guideline. There are no Google scholar hits nor Google books hits, and there are only seven Google hits: three of which are Wikipedia, and the remaining are apparently not relevant to the subject of the article. Furthermore, there is a likely WP:COI involved since the editor who created the article is Hmonroe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the author of the only paper on so-called "chronological censorship" is named Hunter Monroe. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term was in general usage among specialists prior to the mention in my paper. One example on the Internet is here: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2005/07/index.html. A very similar concept is "causal censorship" for instance here http://www.maths.bris.ac.uk/~mapdw/chapter-fin.pdf. This is not the same as cosmic censorship or chronology protection. Feel free to drop the reference to my paper. Hunter Monroe Hmonroe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Neither concept seems notable as would pass our general guidelines, at least not based on these references (a blog posting and passing mention in a published source). There is perhaps a case to be made for merging into chronology protection, since both notions appear subsidiary to that original idea. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is OK with me. I will stay out of it given COI issue raised. Hunter Monroe Hmonroe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comment. "chronological censorship" gets about 3 Google hits, while "chronology protection" gets 34,200. If they are the same thing, this would hint at a rename at the least. (There is also a Wikipedia article Chronology protection conjecture, although that discusses a particular theory by Hawking and so is not the same as this article. There is also an article Cosmic censorship hypothesis. All this is way above my pay grade so I'm not going to vote.) Herostratus (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article chronological censorship is explicitly different from Hawking's conjecture on the lack of closed timelike geodesics, although the two are related. The former does not automatically become notable because of the latter. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure how closely related this concept is to the two similar-sounding articles, so I will not recommend merger or a redirect, but the particular term itself does not appear to satisfy general notability as a neologism. Edison (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, per Herostratus. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:28, 3 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. Jujutacular ^talk 02:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

8 Blacks prayer hall[edit]

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

A pool-hall tenuously linked to a single event covered elsewhere, no on-going coverage. Misarxist (talk) 11:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Misarxist (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "regarded by authorities as a key hub in Australia's militant islamist net-work." sounds like a good step toward notability. It is surprising that there has been no other coverage of such a "key hub." Edison (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNonetheless, I could find nothing other than the single bit of coverage, so it appears to fail general notability. Edison (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if it's really so notorious, there'd be more than a couple of passing mentions of it in the press. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:00, 8 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) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Is John[edit]

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

original research about a band with no real claim to notability, notability is not inherited from another related ARIA nominated band. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't see any indication that WP:MUSIC is met, to be honest. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 7 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.

• AfD statistics)

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

Wikipedia does not publish original research. No secondary sources are cited; the only references to this term I can find originate from the article author, I.R.Bhattacharjee (talk · contribs). Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent pseudoscientific gibberish. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Anyone not immediately convinced that this is sheer crankery is invited to consult with the author's blog. I don't think anything else needs to be said. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no Pubmed hits for "intrinsic gravity" and the only hits for "self-gravity" refer to star formation. This seems to be an article based on the unpublished ideas of a single author. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, not reliably sourced. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonnotable speculation, tied to writings of the apparent author of the article. Convince the scientific world that the gravitational attraction of the human body components for each other is significant and get discussion of this in reliable publications by other scientists, then let someone else create an article. Edison (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a non-notable spin of astrology and original research. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have nominated the related Category:Biomechanics of intrinsic gravity for deletion as well. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no original research, as article creator has indicated it is. if any of this sourced material is in peer reviewed journals, i suppose it may be relevant in an appropriate article somewhere, but only if the editor can slow down the caffeine consumption and explain at those articles before adding the references, in plain english, what the hell hes talking about.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a student of Electronics engineering at Politechnico Di Torino, Italy i beleive that author has presented an article to which future researches are awaiting. The way biological science and gravitational engineering has been merged is simply amazing. A stochastic analysis through various modelling technique of the evident facts is required. A time space analysis of biological facts and then windowing of the those Statistical data's from the various biological phenomenon are being currently undertaken as an interdisciplinary subject in various renowned universities and research laboratories. So the article provides a scope for establishment of many seen and unseen biological facts. Rajan Kashyap (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC) — Rajan Kashyap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per nom.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Films considered the greatest ever[edit]

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

Delete. Yes, there are sources for some of the material, but it still violates NPOV at the core. This is hardly encyclopedic material anyhow. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 08:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: has this already been discussed, as Films that have been considered the greatest ever? --Shirt58 (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per earlier discussion. It indicates winners of various film surveys. Cjc13 (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously this should be kept, this is not POV, it it based on POV but has a strong basis in scholarly debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.169.134 (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The encyclopedic nature of this article has been questioned before, and I agree that it has degraded into something that violates NPOV. But I believe that it still can serve a valid purpose, if some criteria is established for what belongs on the list. If the article limits itself to only those films that have been #1 in a list of the greatest movies (separated by genre or country), there should be no problem providing references to back that up. Lately, people have been adding movies based on Academy Awards, or their rating at Rotten Tomatoes, which has diluted the list. There are other articles for those sources anyway. If the list is cleaned up sufficiently, it should be kept. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as it is watched so that it doesn't become POV and uses only reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response(s). There are numerous people watching this list, yet it still fails to adhere to our NPOV policy. Personally, I feel that this list is inherently geared towards a certain point of view, so this will always be a problem no matter how many watchful eyes it has. What steps do those of you who have responded with "keep" think should be taken in order to make this list compliant? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 15:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmmm. Well by looking at the talk page it seems to me that it used to be semi-protected, which would obviously be a positive step (although I'm unsure why the semi-protection was removed). Also I think that many of the films that are listed cite Rotten Tomatoes and other similar websites as their reference, but I don't think it is a valid reference and it makes the article more cluttered (and someone actually used in their edit summary If Rotten Tomatoes scores can count. Then I see no problem with the Incredibles being added. Even if it wasn't a vote). But yeah I agree this would be a tough article to maintain. Jenks24 (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the one that said that. Because somebody has removed the Incredibles on there, I removed it saying the Dark Knight is the highest rated comic book based movie on Rotten Tomatoes. (Which is not true anyway) But somebody did state in their edit summary that adding Rotten Tomatoes score is ok. So from what it seems is that The Incredibles never needed to be removed if true. Besides comedy does have one of those as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NPOV means that an editor should avoid making an article based his or her own point of view. On the other hand, the published points of view of other persons, documented in independent and reliable sources (which this one is), are notable, whether it's the summary of a Gallup poll, a well-known quote about a person's observation, or a survey of film critics. It's the difference between original research, and summarizing the research of a published author. Mandsford 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are not proclaiming these films to be the greatest ever, we are just stating that they have been considered the greatest ever by noteworthy sources. This article could use some more organization and less trivia, but there's nothing wrong with its scope and premise as this is a notable topic in itself. Them From Space 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only problem with this article is it have a few sources and rankings from IMDb which can be considered unreliable. But other than that it serves it's purpose to what it's about. Jhenderson777 (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a little surprised by the consensus developing to keep. This article really does seem blatantly "unencyclopedic". What's next Best underwear ever? Most awesome Power Ranger? The title suggests this article covers pure critique. I don't think WP is meant to be a repository for this kind of material. NickCT (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the repository for a lot of different things, not all of which appeal to everyone. Believe it or not, entire books have been written about films considered to be "classic", so it's not that far-fetched. I guess that if people felt the same way about Hanes with stretch band that they do about Casablanca and Battleship Potemkin, there might be such a "what's next" list. Mandsford 12:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandsford - " entire books have been written about films considered to be "classic", Entire books have been written about a lot of stuff that doesn't belong on Wikipedia.

"not all of which appeal to everyone." - WP is not a repository for stuff that simply appeals to people. If it was, there would be more pornography.

Wikipedia is a repository for facts and information in articles that are encyclopedic in the same sense that Britanica is encyclopedic. The article in question simply doesn't cut mustard. NickCT (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone will agree with you. Mandsford 13:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.... that'll be the day. Mandsford takes the tone of someone happy to eschew debate and nestle in the bosom of an incorrect majority.

I think JB confused things a little when he complained this article had NPOV issues. WP can certainly present criticism in a NPOV, so I'm not sure that's an issue here. I think the primary issues here are that WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that WP is not a depository for opinion pieces. NickCT (talk) 14:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Nestle in the bosom of an incorrect majority"? Geez, thanks for that mental image. Nevertheless, there are few things more boring in an AfD discussion than to watch two people trade comments back and forth in what they imagine to be a battle of wits, so yeah, I eschew that sort of debate. I'm not worried about whether I can get you to agree with me-- my goal in these things is to get several people to agree with something I write, which sometimes happens. You can debate me on my talk page any day of the week, except on Tuesday, I go bowling on Tuesday. Mandsford 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. It is boring, and I wouldn't press the point, but I've rarely seen an AfD which is so devoid of reason. Anyway.... enjoy bowling. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep For a film to be considered the greatest ever is inarguably a big deal, and this is very solidly referenced by our standards. That isn't to say there's not room for improvement, but it's not a candidate for deletion by a long shot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like with the other "Keep" arguments I don't really see how this line of reasoning applies. Of course it's a big deal for a film to be considered the greatest ever. Why does that mean this page should exist? If a film is highly acclaimed, let that be stated on the article devoted solely to that film.

Is it a "big deal" for a monument to be considered the greatest architectural work ever? Should we have a Architectural works considered the greatest ever? This whole thing is silly, and I have yet to hear a cogent argument for why the article in question should exist. NickCT (talk) 17:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big deal because, as the article demonstrates, the topic has been the source of both expert and public scrutiny and debate for at least the past 60 years or so, and likely before that, too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you're missing the point. I'm not arguing that the title of greast film ever is not WP:NOTABLE. Of course it's notable. And sure, there has been a lot of speculation and debate about what the greatest film ever is. That doesn't mean there should be a page devoted solely to that speculation and debate. I mean, there has been a lot of speculation and debate about the existence of aliens. Should we have a page covering the debate? NickCT (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And we do. See Cosmic pluralism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Pluralism details facts and info about the "Belief in Aliens". It doesn't offer "arguments and critiques for and against the existence of aliens". Films considered the greatest ever offers only critique of what people think is the best film of all time. NickCT (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Good grief, obviously. Wikitrueforever (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: I'm a little surprised that this article was nominated for deletion. This article is "encyclopedic". - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can I please add to my comment above that I do think this page needs some considerable improvement however... Wikitrueforever (talk) 22:55, 9 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 Dante Tomaselli. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ocean (film)[edit]

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

It doesnt appear to have been released.[30] Dante Tomaselli says he will return to working on this, but doesnt cite any sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IMDb page mentioned here no longer exists. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/Redirect to Dante Tomaselli. Agreed, the film was never released. Until such time as it is ever released and receives coverage meriting a stand-alone article, and as there was coverage of its planning and production,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] it serves Wikipedia to have it at the director's article. As a sidenote, I think it hilarious that Lindsay Lohan was in talks to be in the film.[40] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film fails to meet any of the criteria set out at WP:NOTFILM and WP:NFF. I would be satisfied enough and !vote keep had I been able to find any reliable sources attesting that the film ever began principal photography but I was unable to find such sources. As it stands, this seemed to have been a planned project which never became a film and, as such, I don't consider it worthy of inclusion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My own thought above is that while not meriting a stand-alone, it does have (just) enough coverage to be worth a few sourced sentences placed in historical context of his career in the director's article, hence the merge/redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Dante Tomaselli, per User:MichaelQSchmidt. --Pink Bull 05:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, with the nominator backing away slowly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lazarus Effect (film)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (films) with only one critic, Noel Murray. The NPR piece is not critical commentary, nor is the Vanity Fair piece independent.[41] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:N for films as explained by the nom. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the film might not meet any of the special criteria for Notability (film), it still very easily meets the GNG, with other reviews like this, this, this, and this. Not to mention the prolific amount of news sources to be found about it that aren't reviews. Silver seren^C 07:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Film Stage is a blog, with author Kristen Coates being a grad student. PopMatters is a webzine. supple magazine is also not a magazine[42], with all web content posted by 'admin'. Shockya.com doesnt look any better. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has sufficiently wide coverage in various forms from sources to merit notability. Here's another.[43] Ty 08:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That piece is a promo; no critical commentary in it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misleading characterisation, which is properly applied to press releases, paid ads, SPS, and the like, not when an independent organisation uses editorial space. That is an endorsement by the independent organisation of the worth of the content, which the independent organisation is responsible for publishing. The introductory text on the linked page is critical commentary. This might be seen as descriptive material, but critical commentary is often descriptive. Ty 11:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That piece has no critical commentary. None. It doesn't even have a named author. It only contains one sentence of descriptive text, saying that it "follows four HIV-positive Zambia residents, and how treatment has changed their lives." The rest is about the problem, the non-profits who are helping, and then it goes on to introduce the live chat hosted by Huffington Post with Lance Bangs. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede on the critical commentary. But critical commentary as such is not a requirement, only coverage, and clearly the piece is all about the film, so my main points stand. Ty 12:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability (film) lists "plot summaries without critical commentary" in its exclude list. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's taken out of context, which is: "Trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database." This exceeds that level with an accompanying interview inquiring into the making and background of the film.. Ty 13:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The process a studio-produced film goes through to be completed should automatically qualify it for entry in wikipedia. If it wasn't notable, no one would be pouring money into its production. Even though policy is exclusionary and over-reaching in this regard, I'll defer to other evidence of notability to justify my motion here:

The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person (Spike Jonze was executive producer)

Furthermore, (although he'd be the first to say it's not a valid argument), if anyone knew best what articles wikipedia was intended to include, it would be the guy who created this one.
--K10wnsta (talk) 08:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(in reply to K10wnsta, as opposed to the comment directly above which was written by Weakopedia)I tagged the article with {{notability}} a while ago, as a courtesy to the creator so that they could improve it to meet our standards. The tag was later removed, yet the article wasn't improve to meet our standards.
It still doesn't meet our standards, as the film is still lacking critical commentary in reliable sources. As a film, it is not notable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the history of that article it seems that it took Jimbo a couple of trys to get it started - if anyone should know about the concepts of notability and verifiability you might think it would be the founder of the very concepts themselves. You might want to remember that people are fallible and that when the community is asked to make a decision on the deletion of an article it is not necessary to examine the 'status' of the article creator, a policy rejected by this community.

Keep and improve There are plenty of sources, that the article is not very good is not the fault of available sourcing. Weakopedia (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per K10wnsta - the involvement of of Spike Jonze means that this film meets the notability guideline. Claritas § 09:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spike Jonze creates lots of commercials; are they all notable? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it's a documentary, not a commercial. The premiere at the Museum of Modern Art is another indication of notability. Ty 11:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my question. Does mere involvement by Spike Jonze, or a party at MOMA, mean the subject is notable? MOMA doesn't mention this on their website. Also, this campaign also includes a commercial; see the article for the two Adweek articles about the commercial. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MoMA often fails to put things of importance and relevancy on their website...Modernist (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Jonze and MoMA are contributory factors, when assessing the totality of relevant matters. I don't understand the relevance of "a commercial". There's no bar on that in Wikipedia, and Adweek is additional coverage that contributes to notability. Ty 13:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 11:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Review in The Times, shown at MoMA, HBO, Channel 4, on YouTube, piece in Vanity Fair, piece in the Huffington Post. I should only make a documentary with such notability, I'd be very pleased - if I made documentaries...Modernist (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The piece in Vanity Fair is not independent (see above). The piece in Huffington Post is barely a mention (see above). The Times Online limits their criticism to one sentence: "the film — while energetic and upbeat — eschews the stylistic mischief of the rock videos that Bangs has worked on (for artists including ...) or of Jonze’s idiosyncratic movies (...)", and is mostly about the director, (RED), the campaign. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG as it meets its criteria. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable film and a nice little article. Carrite (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
- There is a brief review of the film here in The Scotsman (also appeared here).
- Here a review in the Portland Mercury.
- Here another article in The Times, covering the campaign, in advance of the documentary's screening on the UK's nationwide Channel 4.
- There is a longer review here, but I don't know whether or not the shockya.com qualifies as a RS (it is cited in a couple of dozen articles here on WP, for whatever that's worth, and this is the author of the review).
- Here is a paragraph recommending that readers should watch the film in The Guardian.
- There is a brief description and endorsement of the film and campaign here in the Larry King live blog on CNN.com.
- Here are a couple more RS mentions without critical commentary: [44]/[45] (Channel 4), [46] and [47] (both from Marie Claire), [48] (BBC).
All in all I think it is enough for a weak keep. An alternative idea might be to cover the documentary in the Product RED article; if not, it certainly should be mentioned there, or a "See also" added. --JN 466 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - In addition to finding this film to be sufficiently notable for inclusion, I am outraged (outraged! srsly!!11) by this nomination. Its ridiculous not to note in the nomination that the article was created by Jimbo Wales, and not discuss why one believes it still merits deletion in this case. Huge discussion and drama will ensue and a total f**in waste of everyone's time will be suffered by all. Speedy close please.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure how the article looked when it was nominated, but at present it contains reviews/coverage from Vanity Fair, the Times, the New York Times media blog, NPR, and the Huffington Post, which seems more than ample to meet both the film-specific and general notability guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 17:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Exec Producer Skip Jonze = merits at least a stub entry. Cookiehead (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' Clearly meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. Notability asserted, notability shown. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion, the contributions to the film from both Spike Jonze and Lance Bangs, combined with the mentions in media in the article's references are more than enough to satisfy notability requirements. Peacock (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the RS listed here. I've tagged it for rescue in hopes that someone will go through this AfD and make sure all the listed sources are incorporated appropriately. I note that the nom has already been helping in this regard. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 4 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. While there are clearly more numbers to delete, many of the delete arguments amount to little more than assertions of non-notability. The keep arguments on the other hand point to sources that have not been questioned, and give reasons why this episode is more than a run of the mill episode of the program. In light of this, there can be no consensus to delete. Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IGot a Hot Room[edit]

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

Maybe I'm not looking in the right places, but I do not see why this episode is so special it deserves it's own article. Does not establish notability, so fails WP:N. If I'm wrong, and this is notable, I'll happily withdraw this. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that the single source doesn't even appear to be reliable, and more of a 'gossip' site.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This isn't really notable at all... I think it fails WP:N as well... Rory Re loaded 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as all the plot summary is already listed at List of iCarly episodes#Season 4: 2010-2011, and this article doesn't expand on it. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 13:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're right, doesn't pass WP:N, plus, it keeps getting vandalized. WereWolf (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that vandalism should have no weight in this matter. :) Zell Faze (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly non-notable, the list article is sufficient. ukexpat (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This episode is apparently significant for iCarly for being the first episode to show her room. A large sweepstakes was held. The episode also became the number one download on iTunes. Refs: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] --Odie5533 (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not neccecary athe episode is just a regular one. I vote Delete.Tartar789 (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist.[57][58][59] Surprised me too. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Enough information is already included in the article List of iCarly episodes, plus this season premiere is no more special than any other. The Raptor ^{You rang?}/_{My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions} 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Peregrine Fisher said, sources exist. The NY Post did an article on it. The episode got a lot of hype. Additionally, other iCarly specials have Wikipedia articles so I believe that there is some precedence for this one. That is actually why I created it in the first place. I saw this was the only special Wikipedia was missing. That's my ten cents. Zell Faze (talk) 02:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a slight note, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid reason.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:22, 8 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. Consensus is clearly to keep and the article has substantially improved during the course of this discussion. Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gifford[edit]

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

This person does not seem to be notable under either.WP:GNG or WP:PROF.

"Robert Gifford" is a fairly common name, so it's hard to Google, but I don't see a lot buzz about this guy, or really much of any third-party sources. The article doesn't list any.

I could add a few, such as NY Times and Nature, see below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 2010-08-03t17:44:00z

As to WP:PROF, he's written a couple of books and many papers, but many professors do that. I don't see any indication that the books are especially notable or outstanding. The article claims that he won something called the "2007 Career Award from the Environmental Design Research Association", but WP:PROF #2 asks for a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level", and it doesn't sound like his award is that. Nor does the article claim that he has made a significant impact in his field or fulfilled any other requirement of WP:PROF.

The textbook is the leading one in the field of environmental psychology, for what that is worth. EDRA has over a thousand members, and awards only one Career Award each year, so it definitely is prestigous within that organization.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 2010-08-03t17:44:00z

The only reference given in the article is to a web page written by Robert Gifford himself, which hardly counts, so that this can also be considered an essentially unreferenced WP:BLP.

I did not write the web page; it is the University's standard page, for what that is worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 2010-08-03t17:44:00z

The main editor recently (although not the article creator) is User:Rdgifford. Given the similarity in names, this may be Robert Gifford himself, so there is the possibility of a WP:COI issue here as well. Herostratus (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I wrote the entry, naively, not knowing all the rules. Actually, it has been on Wikipedia for several years, peacefully. I just add a few things yesterday and all this kerfuffle started now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 2010-08-03t17:44:00z

Hey...feel free to delete it. I thought this sort of entry was OK, but if not, no big problem. Seems odd, though, if you are going to keep a page like Anthony Cox, an alleged con man and drug dealer whose only claim to fame was allegedly conning Yoko Ono into marrying him. Robert Gifford —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS to my comment above...would it matter if I cited articles that describe my work in the New York Times and Nature? As for "notable" I am probably among the top 3 most recognizable people in my field (environmental psychology). However, this is not all that important to me, so if this does not qualify as "notable" and yes, I wrote the entry (I would be very surprised if I am the only one!), please delete the whole thing. Robert Gifford —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdgifford (talk • contribs) 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. As far as I personally am concerned, confict-of-interest is not a big deal or a deal-killer for an an article, provided the material is accurate and appropriate and sourced (but be aware that it does raise the hackles of some editors). And of course, I don't mean to disparage your distinguished career in any way, I am just applying the Wikipedia rules; nor am I saying that the article must definitely be deleted, only that it is a question worthy of discussion. As to your question "[W]ould it matter if I cited articles that describe my work in the New York Times and Nature?", yes, it most certainly would help - the more quickly you could add such links, the better. As to your statement "The textbook is the leading one in the field of environmental psychology, for what that is worth", it is worth quite a lot, provided that it is true and that you can cite a reference(s) showing this - again, if you could add such a reference(s), now would be a good time to do so. Message me if you have any questions about how to do this. Also, I fully understand your comment re Anthony Cox and, to an extent, share your frustration on this matter, but it is notability rather than worth that is the main driver for deciding on if biographical articles are kept. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Editor in chief of a well-established journal, meets WP:PROF #8. Note to User:Rdgifford: yes, extra sources would help. As WP discourages people to edit their own biography, the best would be to provide sources on the talk page of the article and eventually someone will incorporate them in the article. As for "notable", that has a somewhat different meaning here than in "real life", see WP:PROF andWP:GNG. --Crusio (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites start off with 476, 84, 72, 70, 50...with an h index of at least 20, so if these cites are identified correctly WP:Prof is passed easily. As for Anthony Cox, Wikipedia, unlike the British Who's Who, is not a compendium of the great and the good. Notable rogues are included as well (but I don't suggest that the subject is one of those). Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Once again, yes this article is autobiographical. I am new to Wiki edting, although the poorly formatted former version of this entry went undiscussed for about three years. I have now tried to make it more typical of standard entries. I don't mind making further minor changes if they seem reasonable. However, I don't want it to continue having these warnings above it. If the consensus is that the article should be deleted, someone pelase do it (I don't know how). If the consensus is that autobio or not, it merits inclusion, then please remove the warnings. Thank you from Robert Gifford. Robert GiffordRdgifford (talk) 05:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting aside the Conflict of Interest/Autobiography issues, the article is written fairly and neutrally, and is supported by references. The subject easily meets the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. He is a full professor at a major university and editor of a significant journal. At Google Scholar, his book has been cited 478 times, and several of his papers 50+ times, indicating that his work is significant in his field. I see that the COI and notability warnings have been removed from the article, and I concur. One additional thing the article needs, ~~and I would have no problem with Dr. Gifford adding the information himself,~~ is a simple listing of where he obtained his degrees. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, since the autobiography angle has been an issue, I would suggest Dr. Gifford point me to where I can find the information about his degrees and I will add it myself. If it's on your website, I missed it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:32, 10 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 Userifying (without redirect) in lieu of deletion per main authors request. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Verses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:CRYSTAL, sources are Blogspot, Twitter, and YouTube. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had just gotten permission to recreate the page by another user. These sources are reliable, as they involve the band specifically themselves. I don't understand. Joberooni (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources You need reliable, third-party sources for articles, which you presently don't have (and don't really exist). First-hand sources are not strictly forbidden, but discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working on more third party sources Joberooni (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Secondary sources are appropriate as well. See WP:SECONDARY. I know it may seem strange to editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia, but blogs, Twitter, and YouTube are generally considered unreliable sources, unless the article is specifically about the video, tweet, or blog, or officially released by a reliable source. We also have to be very careful when linking to these sites, making sure not to link to intellectual property that may violate copyright. Cindamuse (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:CRYSTAL Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. In my opinion, the release of this project is neither notable nor solidified. The Olympics, presidential elections, and the television broadcast of the Academy Awards are pretty much a lock. An article announcing the planned release of a musical project for a year in the future, falls under the policy prohibiting "crystal balls". Anything can happen between now and "summer of 2011", from a change in the title of the project to scrapping the project altogether (which I hope doesn't happen, since I'm a fan). When the CD is released, then proceed with inclusion at that time. In the meantime, userfy the article. Cindamuse (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NALBUMS: No track listing, no release date, and not enough for a stand-alone article. This should be covered in the artist's article for now. Someone can userfy or incubate if so desired. I'm suggesting redirection because the artist confirmed the title in March. Cliff smith ^talk 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree. I think a redirect is the best option. I should have added that to my comment above. I feel like slapping my forehead with a big "duh". Thanks for posting your comment. Cindamuse (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you must redirect, then I suggest just re-userifying to me and I'll take care of it until we get more concrete sources. Joberooni (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 West Virginia University. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia University Alma Mater[edit]

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

lacks justification for a separate article Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per my prodWeaponbb7 (talk)
Keep: No justifiable reason for deletion. The intent is to expand the article by adding additional historical facts about the song and its use at the university. The potential of the page has not been met, as it was recently created. Its usefulness lies in the fact that it will be referenced from several WVU articles rather than listing it in each.

The following are examples of a similar alma mater articles not being considered for deletion: The Yellow and Blue, Notre Dame, Our Mother, Penn State Alma Mater. Here are examples of the potential that alma mater pages have by expanding: The Eyes of Texas and University of Pittsburgh Alma Mater.

Additionally, no attempt was made by Nomoskedasticity or Weaponbb7 to improve the article before nominating for deletion. Cmcginni (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for sources, I saw alot of Primary but no secondary. Please Review Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions specifically WP:OTHERSTUFF Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Nom. Also @Gene93k, the existence of a similar article is not justification for an article.WikiManOne (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is agreed that the existence of the other articles is not reason to keep this one, but other similar articles may be of interest to those reviewing this case. However, my inclusion of the Texas and Pittsburgh articles was to show the potential or direction intended for the West Virginia article.

While the original reason for deletion was "lacks justification for separate article", I have stated the reason: "The article will be referenced from several WVU articles to reduce redundancy among the pages." However, I have yet to see reason for deletion, specifically how this type of article goes against Wikipedia recommendations.Cmcginni (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to West Virginia University. Nothing at the article or on a Google search indicates that this song is notable enough for a separate article. The explanation for why "this type of article goes against Wikipedia recommendations," and why no one attempted to "improve the article before nominating", can be found at WP:NOTABILITY. --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Virginia University. Not notable enough for its own article, nor does its size justify a spinoff. --Pink Bull 05:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that the sources, as uncovered during the progress of the AfD, constitute significant coverage to warrant the retention of the article. Mkativerata (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna of Laroque[edit]

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

A painting that Might be notable depending on whether or not it is by Leonardo Davinci got a few its in Gnews but overall seems non notable Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I think the the debate about whether it is by da Vinci or not is what makes it notable. Jenks24 (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting and expandable topic. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found it interesting to and Got two hits for RS and looked and could not find any elsewhere Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added link to an article in The Telegraph, and another (originally published by Getty Images). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 19:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly two sources that say it might be Davinci painting two years ago are not enough, the other two citations appear to be unpublished works. Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there were a notable controversy about Madonna of Laroque being attributed to DaVinci it should first be mentioned in the Leonardo Da Vinci or List_of_paintings_by_Leonardo_da_Vinci article, then move to its own article when enough RS arise. I don't see that happening in this case. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are two English hits including the Telegraph. There appear to be more substantial sources in French which should be investigated. freshacconci talktalk 02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More reliable sources can be found by a Google News search for the French name such as this one from The Times. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:24, 6 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) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Younus Kathrada[edit]

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

WP:COATRACK, on BLP, (considered writing borderline WP:COATRACK) but its pretty bad Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if he even meets WP:ANYBIO or WP:ONEVENT as well. Most of the article focuses on the anti-Semitic controversy which got little national press and his response which doesn't need to be pasted in there. A Google search for exactly Younus Kathrada and excluding "Wikipedia" and "www.almadinahacademy.com" (his Academy's website) retrieves only 1,760 hits as well. --NortyNort (Holla) 06:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 3 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. —fetch ·comms 01:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty trombone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a dictionary definition. Half the article is composed of what is basically unsourced trivia. Has been nominated for deletion 3 times before; the last time (which was in 2007) was closed as no consensus. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We're not a dictionary. We're an encyclopedia. People, please stop trying to make Wikipedia a shoddy dictionary. Urban Dictionary exists for a reason! JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of WP:RS that make sure it meets WP:GNG. Maybe it can be the next Gropecunt Lane and appear on the main page. Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, most articles that make it to the main page have accompanying images....I don't think Raul would want a picture of a "rusty trombone" going on the main page! Stonemason89 (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify it the sex act is notable and can be exapanded though need substantial trivia removed. I wish WP:IDONTLIKE was a valid argument here. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a couple of celebrities have used the term in passing doesn't mean that the sex act itself is automatically notable. In order to prove that the sex act is notable, you would need to prove that significant numbers of people have actually tried it, or engage in it on a regular basis. It seems to me like this might just be something that people talk about but no one actually does . Stonemason89 (talk) 01:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef with trivial passing mentions of the term, but somebody might consider adding the citations to Wiktionary. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is way beyond a dicdef, its got usage and FCC fines associated with the use of the term. The nominators logic is incorrect demanding that that urban legends be true, which is not a Wikipedia requirement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The FCC fine is probably better mentioned in the Deminski & Doyle article, since the event centered around them. We could even add a link to the relevant Wiktionary entry ([60]) to the Deminski & Doyle page, if we were to merge that section into their article. Stonemason89 (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps after deleting the page, we could place a salted link to the relevant Wiktionary entry? This is what was done with blumpkin, and I think it would work here too. Stonemason89 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. It's much more than a definition. Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per rationale of Lug.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:25, 10 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. I'll have a go at this - strip the redlinks onto the talk page, put in an editnotice ... hopefully that should fix most of the problems. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of independent bookstores in the United States[edit]

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

Unreferenced steaming pile of redlinks for non-notable organizations, currently serving as a superconducting magnet for spammy external links WuhWuzDat 03:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncontrollable list, blatant spam-bait. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete discounting inappropriate links (which i removed), i get 30 actual, notable names on this list. i just made sure each store is given that category, so i dont think this list adds much. it does list them by state, but if we trim the redlinks, we will have less than 1 per state on average, so really adding the city next to them is all we would preserve. This would be nice, i suppose, but we arent a book store search page, and the obvious main use is as a commercial directory, so to save us trouble, i say delete. too easy for indie bookstores to violate their knowledge of library science and encyclopedia construction and add themselves here. i cry for the loss of local stores, but this isnt the way to revive them. there are some notable stores here, but they can be added as articles, even by a store clerk, as long as they arent breathlessly promotional.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as usual, all we need do is remove those without articles or significant mention in articles. It's true that deleting all articles with spam would get rid of the spam, but somehow that does not seem a reasonable approach to building an encyclopedia. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if kept, i will gladly remove the redlinked and unlinked stores, and may actually keep a few if i can find references add next to their names on the list. Dreamhaven should be easy, for example. thanks to nominator for at least starting to rationalize the list by adding hidden text to stop external link spam.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove all red links. It might be good to put the redlinks on the talk page, since someone thought these were special stores. I bet Alaska has at least on notable book store, and it may just be Title Wave. In fact, it does look notable.[61] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mercurywoodrose. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is another one of those lists, like "Youngest Politicians," that is pretty impossible to rein in. As it sits, it's basically gonna be about a 40,000 redlink mess, if taken to logical extreme. I do think that the concept of an index of Wikipedia articles on independent bookstores is important — but that's best left for the "Categories" feature, is it not? Still, if there is some way to redefine this into an index of bookstore links, which is a See Also off of independent bookstore, I could see that as a valuable navigating tool for the average user, who is not apt to understand or use Categories. Also, be advised that pages like this provide valuable Wikipedia "in-links" to avoid botted orphan tags, which is also an important positive benefit, in my opinion. Bottom line: Eliminate redlinks and rename "List of notable independent bookstores in the United States. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this is a secondary list page off of independent bookstores — which has a See Also first listing independent bookstores by country and then this breaking things down to the state level. I think that's well-intentioned, but this definitely needs to have the redlinks dropped, since there are many thousands of independent bookstores in America and the long-term result of this page is going to be a mess. Carrite (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mercurywoodrose. I really just don't think this is fixable. Even looking at the handful of non-redlinks in there I see that a bulk of them likely wouldn't pass an AFD. These kind of situations are exactly what we have categories for. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent bookstores in the US is a notable topic - given the market situation - some book refs: [62], [63], [64], [65] - so a list is an appropriate complement. Just remove the red-linked ones (some have already volunteered to do this) and post a note on the talk page asking that further entries be supported either by a WP article or by two good 3rd party refs. The American Booksellers Association keeps close tabs on its independent bookstore membership; 1,600 in 2009 [66]. A bookstore's membership in this organization may or may not show notability, but it does demonstrate that the number of entries has limits and so is manageable. Novickas (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mkativerata (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three screen network[edit]

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

PROD-contested by article creator. Unencyclopedic, unreferenced, advertises a company at the end, feels like a misplaced AfC submission. elektrik SHOOS 03:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. A whopping twelve Ghits, two of which are Wikipedia (and one of those hits is to an article by the same editor that was deleted only hours ago). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Editor doesn't seem to understand the concept of what is notable enough for an encyclopedia.--Dmol (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an attempt to coin a brand-new neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Detele non-notable neologism.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:06, 6 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 . Negativish, mostly-unsourced BLP, with questionable assertion of notability and no actual proof that the article creator is the subject. Failing that, it's either A7 or G10.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Wakim[edit]

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

Articles subject lacks a great deal of notability and therefore should be deleted. Also, the creator seems to be the subject of the article.Phoon (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jenks24 (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7, BLP with no notability presented. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established. Additionally, this article presents crystal ball content. In my opinion, this article may be a hoax. The only website that uses the identical phrase of the title of the book announced for release September 2010, is a pornographic website. Cindamuse (talk) 18:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The only thing that is sourcable is his having issued a magazine called The Grandstand.[67] One reliable source does not a proper BLP make. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:41, 5 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. SilkTork *^YES! 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Salvadoran football players playing abroad[edit]

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

Similar articles were deleted about a year and a half back, I created the Mexican players list, it was well sourced and it was still deleted. This article is very bad sourced.

I am also nominating the following related pages because it is also a list similar to the one listed above.:

GoPurple 'n Gold₂₄ 03:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add these to the list:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 03:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 03:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine to keep the American page. It is constantly being updated with news of player moves in the transfer market. It would be a pain to go through and source each one of those players, but for from what I can see, it is being updated nearly every day. It's also a good reference for scouts.Slipperydog (talk) 04:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
moved from talk page to main page. --W F C-- 10:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This user has made very few edits outside of this topic. --W F C-- 01:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree... Please keep the American page. There are updates every day. It may not be perfect but I think there are enough people maintaining it that the information is very accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.123.76 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) moved from talk page -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This user has made no edits outside of this topic. --W F C-- 01:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory for non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for lists where there is a professional league in the players' native countries, weak delete the rest as redundant per WP:NOTDIR, but also on notability grounds. The national make-up of a team or league is significant due to quotas, but in most countries we don't care if he's American, Salvadorian or Lativan, we merely care whether there is a nationality restriction on his country. For instance in England we only care whether he is an EU national or not. Whether an EU national is Latvian or English is irrelevant, as is whether the non-EU national is American or Belizian. Given that, for this purpose, Americans are a non-notable group (as are all other nationalities, including my own). In football nationality is notable within one's own country, or for determining international qualification, but not here. --W F C-- 10:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have somewhat altered my thinking based on Fkp's rationale below, which I have not considered. For the purposes of this AfD, the countries with professional leagues are the USA and Australia, but to be explicitly clear I am strongly opposed to similar lists for any country with a professional league. --W F C-- 23:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused why some people believe just the American list should be kept. Surely they should either all be kept or they should all be deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I share this opinion, and would be extremely concerned if the outcome of this discussion increases systemic bias. However, I doubt that will happen, as a majority of admins realise that AfD is a policy-based debate, as opposed to a vote. --W F C-- 16:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all The bar is much lower for sports articles, and their adherents tend to do a better than average job of maintaining such pages. I'm sorry that the nominator's page of "Mexican players playing abroad" got deleted, or that I wasn't there when it was being debated. I'm amused by the statement that "it's fine to keep the American page" (in fairness, the editor wasn't advocating deleting the other pages). There are lots of editors who are Americans, and lots of editors who are American sports fans, but very few editors who are American sports fans outside of the four major sports (baseball, basketball, football and hockey). Are there articles about English, Scottish, Irish, Welsh, etc. football players playing abroad? Assuming that these get kept, bring back the Mexico page, you got cheated on that one. Mandsford 19:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, those articles don't exist, and rightly so. The fact that a page may or may not be well maintained is irrelevant. --W F C-- 19:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: one of them was actually deleted. --W F C-- 19:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit2: as was the parent list. --W F C-- 19:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think these lists are too poorly constructed at the moment. Take Nildeson for an example. He was born in Brazil and played in Mexico before becoming a citizen of El Salvador. Why should he be listed as a Salvadoran playing abroad? There are so many possible contentious issues with these lists, I recommend scrapping them all unless they can be very clearly defined and well-sourced. Jogurney (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WFC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as above. Giant Snowman 18:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I believe lists of footballers playing abroad is encyclopedic and of note. I agree with the points relating to what counts as a 'nationality', but this is an issue in many other pages on Wikipedia i.e. placing players in 'English footballers' category without evidence. These articles should be improved/fully referenced, not deleted. Eldumpo (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Poor referencing strengthens the case for deletion. But even if it was referenced to featured list standards, that wouldn't change the fact that these lists aren't notable, and falls into the category of What Wikipedia is not. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for deletion, but as far as categories go, any biography that asserts a person's nationality without something backing that nationality up should tagged with {{BLPrefimprove}} (with an edit summary or talk page note to explain why the article is being tagged). Regards, --W F C-- 19:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improve sources, and use them in a historical perspective, as partially the Albanian is made. If it is only about the current players, it is very hard to keep continously updated and becomes recentism... Obviously, by my logic, this would be only usefull for "interesting" nations like Albania, Belize, etc. It would be ridicoulous to make a "All time Brazil players playing abroad". See my point? So, we should make some further sugestions on how to improve this lists. FkpCascais (talk) 01:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are suggesting that we keep, on the basis that every football player who has ever played anywhere should be listed everywhere, and that that would be more maintainable? --WFC-- 01:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you make a good point, and I already included in my comment the issue regarding how difficult may be to keep this lists updated. The thing is that as a football statistics fan, I do apreciate to know, exemple, where do Belizean footballers emigrate, and wich Belizean players got to play in some professional leagues. If some editors are willing to make an effort to make such lists, and if they are sourced, why not give them a chance? However, we could/should make some criteriums, as for exemple, inclusion, size of the article (Kb), ... I don´t know, I´m just giving ideas. FkpCascais (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if this could be sourced... so what? It would be completely impossible to deal with dual nationalities. This is something that squad templates also struggle with, but it's far more pressing when nationality is absolutely central to the purpose of the article. But more importantly (taking Spain as an example but the same is true of every country with immigration restrictions, i.e. virtually every country), Barcelona don't care if the player they're buying is Belizian. They care whether the player will count as a "foreign player" (non-EU national in Spain's case). Once they've established that he is a foreign player for immigration purposes, they couldn't care less whether he is American, Belizian, Canadian or Djibouti. --WFC-- 13:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand your argument, but I also beleave that you are looking to this issue with only one side perspective in mind. Althought I don´t completely agree with you about the total non-importance of players nationalities in clubs of the major leagues, the issue becames more important when you look it from the perspective of those minor countries (while mostly don´t, certainly some, exemple, Barcelona, fans do have interess about the different nationalities of their players, and football stats fans generally I beleave do). From what I understood, English WP is the most international one, and it is not done with the exclusive interess to people from the US, UK, Australia and other anglophile nations. If some Nicaraguan editor is willing to list the Nicaraguan players that played professionally abroad, well why not allowing it? And if you, or many, by your words, don´t have interess about it, well, don´t get me wrong, but ignore it. I also don´t share interess about certain articles (and perhaps most people doesn´t, as well) but that doesn´t necesarilly mean the articles shouldn´t exist. And regarding the nationality issue, I really don´t understand what is making so much strugle at all, because beleave me, a, exemple Nicaraguan, editor knows quite 99% certainly which players are Nicaraguan, and which aren´t. Regarding nationality, the "problematic" players are just a tiny minority, even less that 1%. FkpCascais (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd question the assertion that more than 99% of nationalities are clear-cut. Indeed, a Nicaraguan editor will have a vested interested in considering people who could qualify for two or more nationalities as Nicaraguans. You do make a good point about general interest, but if players playing overseas are general interest, why not players playing in their own country? Are Steven Gerrard and John Terry of less general interest than Matt Derbyshire due to geography alone? --W F C-- 18:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        :) You are missing the point of those lists... While for some nations most of the players that archive to play abroad are generally more notable than the ones that don´t get contracts abroad, that may not be the case for all. Exemple, the Nicaraguan players that got to play in the US or Europe are usually the best ones, the Australians that go to play to Malaysia or Romania simply may be, or not. The point of the listing of the players that play/played abroad is not "notability because of emigrating", but more as a statistics list. On the other hand, maybe in the future we may have lists of players that played in only one club during their entire careers, players that played more than 10 consecutive seasons in the Premier League, and others of the kind. I don´t know WFC if you understand this, but I beleave, and the number of editors participating on this related articles, that many people around the world simply enjoy not only checking their nations lists of players abroad (including in this foreign players in their leagues), but like to see from other nations, as well, as for comparison purposes, or simply curiosity. Another interesting fact may be that WP is likely to be the pioneer on this kind of stats for many countries... FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just say Wikipedia is not an excessive listing of statistics. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is why we should make some criteriums for them. Exemple, including only professional leagues. By that, we will be sure about players notability (since playing in a pro league makes them automatically notable) and by that, we will shorten the lenght of them (most include largely players in 2nd and 3th leagues, even youth teams...). Perhaps there are other possible inclusion criteriums, lets try to see if we can work something out from here. FkpCascais (talk) 23:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You make a very strong argument with your reply to me Fkp, one that I hadn't considered. I still question whether they are worthy of a place on wikipedia, but have altered my !vote accordingly. --W F C-- 23:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is can always be replaced by a cat. Matthew_hk t c 06:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, redundant to category, too frequent updating required to be useful, and not a topic that exists independently of the list. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per WFC and Stifle. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Sanders (musician)[edit]

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

When an article is proposed for deletion, it is not meant to punish but instead can be an opportunity to improve the article. Yes, it is possible that the article could be deleted, but it is also very possible that the article could be improved and kept. In this case it appears that the proposed deletion notice was removed without an appropriate response, no reasons being provided for keeping the article, no specific objections to the proposed deletion.

The references for the article as they now stand are not reliable, MySpace, YouTube and liner-notes are not considered to be independent. Third party sources are more appropriate for Wikipedia. The 'fan' tag was placed on the article because of the general tone...for instance, the article called the artist "the God of Shred" without citing any news stories or industry sources to stand behind that nickname. (See fan pages for an explanation of how the pages' tone can appear to outsiders.)

Please post any of your thoughts about the article's possible deletion (or about the 'fan'/'reference' templates) here at the deletion discussion.

Shearonink (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 03:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nomination (pending possible improvements). Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck;moving to keep, see updated comment below

Delete for lack of reliable sources and becuase page author didn't fill in the background field in the infobox. Seriously, how frakking hard is it to follow instructions? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Keep per added sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VancoD (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC) As someone publishing their first wiki page, I will tell you that it's actually pretty frakking hard to follow the eleventy-billion esoteric instructions to put content into a page. But thanks for your kind, gentle guidance and the nomination to delete the page.[reply]

I did, in fact, use another Wiki page for a template - the one from Jimi Hendrix if for no other reason than he's a guitarist and I liked the layout of the page. Other than the detailed content available for Hendrix the format is literally the same between the 2 pages.

Does an artist have to achieve some sales or publication status before biographical content goes from fan page to fact????

I remain unclear on what is an "appropriate resource" to validate the existence of a performing artist. He's been in videos, he's on several pieces of recorded media an his name can be found in "the credits". I feel like I'm being told I have to prove that a fish is a fish. I just have no idea how I'm going to provide a satisfactory reference to backup the "facts" as presented.

I get the part about removing the "God of Shred" reference, that was his wife's call (and it's now gone). But I feel I'm being accused of making up a persona or something - the guy is merely a working musician looking to have a presence on Wikipedia. He asked me to make the page for him. I honestly don't get what sources I'm supposed to site to prove the guy is a guitar player who's been in some arguably well-known bands.

Improve or Delete: WP:MUSICBIO is the test here. Sanders appears to have been a member of a notable band, Lizzie Borden but the links in his article should all go to that article, as opposed to the murderess, and it would also help if that article linked back to him, although the band's article doesn't mention Sanders otherwise than as a current member in the infobox, which isn't good enough. Some copyediting and pruning of self-published sources would help, as would the plethora of product endorsements, which are promotional, cheap and unnecessary. Needs a shedload of work to remain credible. Rodhull andemu 23:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am posting some useful links that deal with these issues on your talkpage. I am reserving my judgement on this one until we see what can be found.--SabreBD (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improve or delete: I did make edits to the article, such as making more appropriate picture captions and removing some external link violations. However, this person is part of one band with a wikipedia article, while the other listing of associated acts in his infobox is that of one person. There may be notablilty problems about that, considering how wikipedia counts notability for musicians as being part of at least two notable bands or part of one band while having maintained a solo career. Further improvement would be reasonable to implement on this article, if it should be kept. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 00:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: First, to those of you that have posted some useful links on my talk page - thank you. These look extremely helpful in understanding appropriate content and form, and I will start to read over them. Regarding endorsements as "promotional, cheap and unnecessary": Promotional I can sort of agree with. Cheap and unnecessary are decidedly opinion. As a musician myself, I happen to enjoy knowing what a particular guitar player uses to get their sound. But to the point - if links to Wikipedia sources seem to be what this page needs to be all about, cannot the endorsements be left in place if they instead point to the Wikipedia entries for said products or companies? There are pages here dedicated to Jackson guitars, GHS strings, etc, etc. I would again state that the Hendrix page has entries for both the Stratocaster and the amps he used - is this acceptable "endorsement"? I will continue to look towards making the page more compliant.VancoD (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks coverage in independent reliable sources (amongst others, my search for Chris Sanders and Lizzy Borden got nothing). Other things VancoD should consider are conflict of interest and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix The subject seems notable in significant coverage from reliable sources. The conflict of interest can be overcome and the promotional tone can be corrected to an encyclopedic tone. Therefore the article is correctable within normal editing processes. Items 9 and 10 here indicate a less antagonistic method of correcting might have been preferred. The silver lining to this WP:AfD is that it should emerge a much better biography. While Chris Sanders is not Jimi Hendrix, in that he is still playing guitar, he is Chris Sanders, a notable guitarist, whose biography can nothing but improve Wikipedia as a whole. My76 Strat 19:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but continue to improve Have been able to find several more sources, they have now been added to the article. The article is in much better shape from its first incarnations and if more references/sources can be found and added to the article by interested parties, that can only help. Making it harder for historians of the rocker/metal/band genre (and as I have discovered during my most recent research), the various permutations of band line-ups and other facts aren't always recorded in great detail for posterity.

I regret any hard feelings the AfD has engendered, that was not my intent. Shearonink (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ... looks more like a promotion than an encyclopedia entry. As I read it I just kept thinking ".. and who cares.." Tommy! [message] 20:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if an article exist is not an inclusion criteria, significant coverage in reliable sources is and the criteria has been met. To elaborate there are many who care to see such articles, like me for example and others. But again, opinions to this regard don't matter, coverage does. My76 Strat 20:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I lean as more inclusionist myself but that article just goes on about seemingly unimportant trivia data, thus leading me to want it be deleted. Tommy! [message] 22:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue to improve The Wikipedia page as written, in my opinion, does not explain qualifying notability that exists. If references are now being found, it is important to develop the article. VancoD identified that this was the first article that he has created. His statement about the difficulty in coming up to speed in writing articles is true. A guiding hand with encouragement is what is needed.

Wikipedia:Articles for creation can be a very useful means of bringing an article to live status. It is advertised as being beneficial for those without user accounts, however, it is also very beneficial for editors with accounts. Issues such as those being discussed here can be worked out behind the scenes prior to going live. Doc2234 (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but drastically prune until improved. I've laid out my thoughts in Talk:Chris Sanders (musician), as they would be too long and intrusive here. Acabashi (talk) 13:10, 10 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. —fetch ·comms 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hornsey Central Neighbourhood Health Centre[edit]

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

No notability asserted. Previous speedy failed. Article (except for the old speedy and a bot edit) entirely edited by SPAs, PR people with NHS Haringey, and NHS Haringey! Not speedying because of the SPA concern, but this is a borderline candidate for it. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: there is no notability claimed. N/A 0 03:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and likely SPA. An exact Google search for "Hornsey Central Neighbourhood Health Centre" excluding "Wikipedia" retrieves 455 results as well, mostly just listings. --NortyNort (Holla) 06:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to NHS Haringey, which seems like the sensible place for any encyclopaedic information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Hornsey. This is usually the best solution for facilities only of local notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:25, 6 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of racing simulators[edit]

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

The article is a jumble of unstructured and in many places nonsensical information. It is purely OR and the article comprises of almost exclusively tables without prose. This article is not suitable for an encylopedia in its current form, and I don't see how it ever can be. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm impressed by the work done on the article, and by the game developers too! However (as was suggested on the page itself) this would be more suitable for a game wiki. Too much detail except for serious fans or industry insiders. Wolfview (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. But it would be nice if there were an automated way of moving articles, or at least informing them (Wikia for instance) when this is the case. SharkD Talk 21:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wolfview. Someone should move this to a gaming wiki. N/A 0 03:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Reach Out to the Truth 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gameguide. Good on an external wiki, but not here. Some sources are probably good to use for a racing video game article, however, to note generalized differences between games. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since most of those listed are notable, a comparison is relevant. A comparison intrinsically uses tables, not prose--its the clearest way to do it, and I think every such article in Wikipedia does so. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only real issue is OR (for the too much detail thing, see WP:PAPER). I think this is just a matter of sourcing and in-line cites. As these are almost entirely black-and-white factual things the primary source is even acceptable as a way to avoid OR. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is also an issue of lasting importance. It will be of very little interest 5 or 10 years from now when the technology will have (I'm sure) greatly advanced. If you say the article will have also have been constantly updated to keep up, then (to me anyway) you are saying that it's not really an article to read but a data service. That's a very worthwhile thing but not really the purpose of an encyclopedia. No one will want to read an article on "The State of Racing Simulators in 2010," in this level of detail that is. Wolfview (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a superfluous argument, as that could be said about many things within WP:VG. --Teancum (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- to me, the issue is synthesis. Has a list like this been compiled somewhere else? If not, we should not be the first. From what I've seen of the few cited sources, none of them present the information for the purpose of comparing one game against another, so for us to do so would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. We would be conducting original research by drawing novel conclusions from the sources. But I realize that our standards for tables is lower than it is for articles, so I am open to being persuaded otherwise if there's a good enough reason. Of course, I will change my vote if someone comes up with sources that do explicitly compare these things. Reyk _YO! 06:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic and sections are OR, and content violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm a little concerned about OR here; for example, several games have a "Pacejka-like" tyre model. Was this found out from the game manuals or developer interviews, or did the author just decide this was the case? The article also screams "indiscriminate information" to me. Marasmusine (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just checked, and the article seems to already exist at Wikia. Link. We just need to copy the list of contributors over for attribution purposes. SharkD Talk 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SharkD Talk 22:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't do much here anymore so I don't know if my vote will count, but this seems to based more or less entirely a comparison of press bumf. I mean, so simulator A models "wall deformation", does it? In what manner does it model "wall deformation"? What if it's a completely inept and useless model of "wall deformation" which in actuality bears no resemblance to actual real-life tyre wall deformation? In what way is simulator B "based on data from tire manufacturers"? Could be read as just a high-falutin' way of saying "based on a real car". Comparison of such claims by game publishers is entirely non-encyclopedic. Jamieli (talk) 00:49, 10 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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrizio Brienza[edit]

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

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

Subject is Italian model and actor. Majority of refs are self-published/IMDb/dead/minor etc. Does not constitute significant coverage. Creator is involved in sockpuppet case. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 20 July 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, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My mind is boggled as to why this article is up for deletion. This person is certainly a notable person with a fairly lengthy list of special appearances and modeling work with high-profile designers. As for the complaint above, maybe some more reference work needs to be done as well as some POV work but why delete it? Hippychick 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hippychickali (talk • contribs)
Surprised keep, but rewrite. His acting roles are trivial, and I have no clue about his status as a fashion model. However, he has a weirdly high-profile job as a doorman[68][69][70][71] (one of those people who bar the riffraff from exclusive places). He was anointed a "door god" by the Village Voice according to this article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 27 July 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) 00:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources show notability. Anyway it's better to have a positive article about someone than a negative one. Wolfview (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper (Appelt book)[edit]

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

Could not find any notable sources on the internet Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make this article as acceptable as possible. Please don't delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarLegacy (talk • contribs) 00:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you can find some reliable third party sources then please add them. However, the search that I undertook revealed nothing that I would consider notable. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found reviews from Booklist, Kirkus, Kansas City Star, and Publisher's weekly. Appelt is a Newbery Award winner and National Book Award finalist and certainly a notably author by any reasonable measure. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 27 July 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) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add the reviews. They're the necessary sources. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or perhaps merged into the author's article. I could only find a few reviews on the book: [72] [73] [74]. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:38, 3 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. Scott Mac 12:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parallelogram steering linkage[edit]

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

A "parallelogram steering linkage" as described here isn't a parallelogram. See Talk:Parallelogram_steering_linkage#Inaccuracies for further detail. This is one of a number of articles by this editor whose accuracy falls far below the standards required at WP, or (most prolifically) at Commons. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 July 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) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seem to be quite a few hits for the search term Parallelogram steering linkage on Google and Google books. Obviously the concept is notable. It seems from the discussion page that a redirect to Ackermann steering might be the way to go, but in that case the latter article should at least mention the term, which seems to be fairly standard parlance in automotive mechanics. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the hits you're seeing describing the same thing as the article is? --Carnildo (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really.--Pink Bull 05:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rudimentary Google search indicates notability. Whatever is unverified should be deleted, even if it means removing most of the article.--Pink Bull 05:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three sentences in this article, which do you consider are worth keeping? The one that says, "A parallelogram linkage is shaped like a parallelogram"? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see how this is a notable concept. Google searches are not references and cannot indicate notability. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a clear consensus to that effect. Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ly De Angeles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

2nd nomination; still almost totally unsourced except to her publisher's blurbs about her Orange Mike | Talk 01:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the nom feels that Geocities, Usenet and tabloid magazines are suitable as sources, I don't see how he can discredit the sources used in this article. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? What exactly does this refer to? It seems to be a total non-sequitur. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is. See your talk page. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but i did already "vote" in the last afd, so this is not a new opinion. I agree its poorly sourced and should be stubified if it passes afd, but we arent a clean up crew. Not sure what jbsupremes comments about sources mean. I just know that llewellyn is the major publisher of astrology books in the US. I would change my vote if someone with expertise in astrology says she isnt notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single outside reference is provided. Google provides her own web page plus social websites, blog mentions, and links to her books (and of course this article); not a reliable source to be found. Google News provides zip. Google Books shows only her own books. Doesn't come close to meeting WP:AUTHOR. --MelanieN (talk) 00:00, 1 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) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree that notability has not been established. Being included in an index of published works isn't enough to pass notability - the threshold is non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable secondary sources - which aren't demonstrated here. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MelanieN. Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR, and doesn't even really come close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTHOR, lack of reliable sources. --Whoosit (talk) 16:39, 7 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. Scott Mac 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial Drive (Atlanta)[edit]

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

Unremarkable city street in Atlanta. Fails WP:GNG on its own. –Fredddie ™ 06:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete–fails GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page between Georgia State Route 10 and Georgia State Route 154 since Memorial Drive is part of these two routes. Dough 48 72 02:19, 28 July 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) 00:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add mention of the portion named "Cynthia McKinney Parkway (I am *not* a supporter!). I live less than two blocks away and *nobody* in the neighborhood knows it by that name!! Samatva (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Naming controversy should satisfy notability requirements for a semi-geographical article like this.--Pink Bull 05:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable road, WP:ONEEVENT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Scott Mac 12:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UltraFly Model Corporation[edit]

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

Subject does not appear notable. Has been tagged for notability and references for two years, and notability is still yet to be established. Reads like a press release. Taiwantaffy (talk) 07:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Doggone it, Wikipedia is not paper and we encourage everyone to be bold and just write. The company is well-established, it's a major player in the hobby market (and I should know because I write reviews of hobby products for another site), its products are exported worldwide and the article, though it's one of my older ones, is well-outlined and is anything but a "press release." I don't gain a thing by "advertising" for this company. I've written countless articles and I can't keep track of them all; instead of nominating this for deletion, I would have appreciated a suggestion from the nominator to bring it up to snuff as opposed to a notice that the article had been shipped to AfD. I rarely resent the efforts of established editors, but I sure as shooting resent this nomination and I'll shut up while I'm ahead. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here's the company's website if anyone's interested: [75]. I'm signing off before I type something I'll resent later. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just cleaned up 350 articles associated with the Taiwan WikiProject. There's a fair bit of cruft in there that has no place on Wikipedia, and some of the articles (like this one) have been tagged as needing improvement for a long time without any improvements being made. I don't like to see articles disappear, but equally I don't like a lot of articles (tech companies and academics are the worst culprits from Taiwan) which are self-promotion for an otherwise non-notable entity. I've seen the company website, I've Googled their products, and I was sceptical about UltraFly meeting the notability criteria. If I'm wrong - great - a couple of solid references from reliable sources and I'll vote to keep. Anyhow, my apologies for upsetting you, and please know that I'm just trying to improve this place, like you are. Taiwantaffy (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I'm terribly sorry. It's an older article and one which was done before some of the rules regarding inline references and notability were upgraded. It's a bit jarring to see an AfD on something you worked on (however old it may be) and I reacted badly. I was in a lousy mood when I logged on and that's never a good idea. I can't work on it now, but I'll do what I can with it ASAP. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some references in other sources:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=274205 http://radiocontrol.wikia.com/wiki/UltraFly_Model_Corporation http://www.kaboodle.com/reviews/ultrafly-model-pc-9-w-speed-400-park-flyer-arf-32 http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_2328271/anchors_2328321/mpage_1/key_/anchor/tm.htm#2328321 http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=5YSGyVRzQ2E --Jtle515 (talk) 18:04, 30 July 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) 00:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless cleaned up. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palladium boots[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. The only source cited is a blog post. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company with 90 years of history and a recognisable international brand. References are not hard to find, including this just posted today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think that Palladium is a notable company and brand. This stub needs to be retitled to make it clear that it is about a footwear company, not about its product — at a minimum. It's a poor article and I hate coming to the defense of those. I can see wiping it out and hoping that someone will do a fully-assed job sometime in the future... Carrite (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. I'm not sure that a single paragraph in on a fashion page is enough in-depth coverage of a business to sustain an article, and Google News and Books don't come up with anything deeper. Does this mean that my osmium boots are out of style? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 30 July 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) 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think the Montreal Gazette article is enough either. We need to hold articles about businesses to the "significant coverage" standard lest our articles become a vehicle for promotion. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jujutacular ^talk 00:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa J. Domzal[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:PROF or other notability guidelines. Stifle (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She has published in academic journals, and her articles are cited by others - up to 58 citations which is significant. She is dean of a school at a smallish London university, in addition to a significant post with the Defense Intelligence Agency. I think she probably makes it as notable, recognizing that academics don't tend to get things written ABOUT them. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 31 July 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) 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MelanieN. Jenks24 (talk) 15:36, 3 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 Rename The biographical content in the article is pretty trivial, and several of those !voting delete admit the incident is notable... as do those !voting keep! Moving the article to focus on the event rather than the person is also recommended per ONEEVENT, addressing the concerns of that set of !voters. Only the last !voter appears to have advanced a specific renaming argument, but I find it compelling and consistent with the expressed !votes. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Innes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. A sad matter, but the subject fails Wikipedia:Athlete#Figure skating and WP:SINGLEEVENT. The fatal incident is also not notable, failing WP:NOTNEWS. WWGB (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC) WWGB (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received newspaper coverage multiple times over a few years, in multiple papers in Australia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly change the title and list at the scholarships or foundations category, or whatever the appropriate list is. If Rae and Edith Bennett Travelling Scholarship deserves a entry, this article does also. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage is obviously there so she is notable. But she is notable only for her death and thus fails our inclusion policy. I don't think anyone could argue that her figure skating career was notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mkativerata. Textbook WP:ONEEVENT. Frickeg (talk) 12:30, 31 July 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) 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not WP:ONEEVENT. She "won the 2006 Queensland Intermediate Ladies Championship", "was placed 7th at the 2006 Australian Championships in the novice ladies division", and "Innes was killed ... [in] the collision near the Sydney Harbour Bridge". She's no Mao Asada, but this doesn't fail ONEEVENT. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 16:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her skating achievements are not notable per Wikipedia:Athlete#Figure skating, so her death is WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marginally notable as an athlete, and the circumstances of her death wouldn't appear to confer significance. JNW (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, oneevent applies here. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Figure_skating and Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Amateur_sports_persons as the subject only skated at the intermediate level. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the reasons set forth above. It would make more sense to have an article about the incident, something along the lines of Sydney Harbour fatal ferry crash. Information on Innes can be included there.--Pink Bull 03:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future Trance[edit]

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

Has been unsourced for some time, article subject is ambiguous neither seems notable neon white talk 12:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge into Trance music. Lose the list, though. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what though? i can't find a source for the opening claim. --neon white talk 13:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the compilation; lose the music genre. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 July 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, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (BURN IT WITH FIRE) LOL at the suggestion to merge! There are no sources here, there is nothing to merge. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very useless dictionary definition. There's an article to be written on this topic by somebody eventually, but this vapid snippet helps nobody. Carrite (talk) 14:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one line. no sources. not notable.Cookiehead (talk) 18:23, 3 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) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy (Law & Order: Criminal Intent episode)[edit]

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

Delete - no reliable sources to indicate that this individual episode is independently notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Episode is already covered in sufficient detail in the season 1 article and the title is an extremely unlikely search string; no need for merger or redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - somehow Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hungarian sentiment (2nd nomination) has been subsumed into this nomination and I can't see how to fix it. Otto4711 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I see, but I dont understand how to correct it. --maxval (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now, cheers Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 27 July 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, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge intact into a combination article. (and complete the description of the episode--it does not actually say how it ends, and we don't use teasers. . DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to grace us with an actual rationale? Tarc (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero real-world notability of this particular episode. Other episodes of the season should be evaluated as well, and folded into a single season article if necessary. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 3 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. Should be re-nominated or merged if notability is not forthcoming. I've trimmed out the spurious non-free images. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Trion[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The article is basically just a list of appearances in various media padded out with a load of in-universe stuff. No decent sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a major fictional character, who Hasbro has recently expanded on in it's fiction. Mathewignash (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a major character if reliable sources have decided it's major, not if you have. Do you have any reliable sources? Perhaps you'd care to turn the article into something resembling an encyclopedia article? J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of getting from books ordered from my library system to use as sources for several Transformers articles. So please hold off on deleting them until they arrive. Mathewignash (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of Transformers characters article. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a often used character in Transformers history who has been around for over 2 decades in various forms, and linked to in over a hundred other articles on Wikipedia. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's nice. Do you have any reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of this character? J Milburn (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of reliable sources and claim/evidence of notability. Redirect to an entry on an appropriate List of Transformers characters -- although nothing more than a quick blurb would be appropriate; there's no need to retain any of this indiscriminate, trivial information for merge-history concerns. --EEMIV (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see the logic in tagging one of the more important Transformers articles out there for deletion. Just because YOU never heard of him, does not mean he isn't a major fictional character. Mathewignash (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't about who's heard of who. I come across a great number of articles on subjects I've never heard of; if this character genuinely is significant, there will be reliable sources out there and a half-decent article could be written, as opposed to what is there now. J Milburn (talk) 22:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If people would bother to take a look, I've added an expanded opening paragraph which is more encyclopedic. Removed an excess image, removed some fan speculation, added some book references from the first book which I got from the library, and tried to improve the article. Sadly I'm not an expert writer, nor do I have unlimited time and resources, but the article is improving.Mathewignash (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Still, what we're left with is a large, large amount of in-universe trivia. Less is more- do not be scared to cut out the rubbish. It's better for everyone involved if we can salvage a decent article from this. J Milburn (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I've removed about 25% of the size of the article, without actually removing any useful content. It's a start. Mathewignash (talk) 01:23, 3 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, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was unable to find many reliable sources even discussing the character, and none which focused on the character exclusively. Does not constitute significant coverage per WP:GNG and should not have its own article. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if one goes by the GNG for topics of this sort, there is no requirement that there be "many"sources, nor that the sources be exclusive. They just have to be substantial--more than a listing. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Also it does need a lot more work to fix it up, but it can be fixed (and it looks as if Mathewignash is working on it). Some time and effort could turn it into a decent article. Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a fictional character on a tv show or film does not mean notability. Has character become a cultural figure? Has the character been the subject of a major WP:RS other than trade publications? Cookiehead (talk) 18:21, 3 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 Autobot. This is a clear Merge, but I can't find a suitable target. I have suggested the redlink below; if anyone can find a better target or wants to start a List of minor Transformers characters article (which looks as though quite a few others could be merged into) please feel free. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Load (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable character. Article is a list of appearances padded with unencyclopedic details. No real sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is notable. Perhaps needs more references. Mathewignash (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, some references to establish said notability would be nice. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 28 July 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, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete – I could not find a single reliable source covering this character. Fails WP:GNG. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Don't think it is notable enough for its own article. Jenks24 (talk) 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge I have loved transformers for 20 years but this is classic WP:FANCRUFT merge into list of transformers characters Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is fair. No real sources that can WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:11, 4 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. Still needs some tidying, but isn't WP:CRYSTAL now - released in a month so there seems no point in merging it only to be split out again Black Kite (t) (c) 16:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Miguel (2010 album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, reads like an advertisement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the name only, it was confirmed by the cover, released on his facebook. Delete the unsourced info. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:15, 29 July 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, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertisement for a forthcoming album. Carrite (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jenks24 (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album by notable artist with WP BLP. Articles shouldn't be deleted because of the way they are written, but if the subjects are not notable. Cookiehead (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been moved because the title has been confirmed. Hope this doesn't cause confusion. --Aguilac (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at this point there are substantial sources, tracklist, album cover, title, etc. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:50, 7 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. Only reason given to keep the article is that others of the kind exist. There is a clear numerical and argumentative consensus to delete based on the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Wang[edit]

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

Article is written like an advertisement, and does not establish the notability of the subject. A web search reveals little information on him from reliable third-party sources. Taiwantaffy (talk) 07:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 28 July 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, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There might be some notability in the TV work, but maybe not. Sounds like he's basically a news anchor, and similar articles are sometimes kept but often deleted. In any case nothing is referenced, the article is basically a resume, and it's written so poorly that it often borders on nonsense. I'd reconsider if someone wants to bother with a total rewrite, but as written Wikipedia would definitely be better off without this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TV host. Author. Every minor TV show co-host on CNBC has their own page as a precedent.Cookiehead (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be run of the mill news presenter and scholar. No sources, so article can be BLP prodded. Searches for Tom Wang mostly refer to others. Vanity page and promotional piece. Christopher Connor (talk) 01:01, 8 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.