Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 December 20 December >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. speedy delete per snow, original author, and IAR tedder (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 basketball referee battery[edit]

2010 basketball referee battery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed speedy templates, a single event that is far from being encyclopedic or notable. There's no way it meets the general notability guideline. It might be worth including a sentence in the DeSoto County High School article if it gets written. tedder (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't heard about it - consequently I don't think it's such big news. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 23:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable single event. Wikipedia is not the news. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 01:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, wildly non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds quite non-notable, single event. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The user who marked the page for speedy deletion was clearly doing so in bad faith [1] (note the edit summary: "That is what we are supposed to do to new articles"); that user also added fake block templates to my and others' talk pages (at [2], [3], [4], and [5]). I would not be opposed to transwiki to WikiNews. RJaguar3 | u | t 15:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete High school kid gets mad and shoves a referee. Historic! Mandsford 15:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Something that only gets the shut-ins watching the line of 'country going down the drain, now comment on Facebook why it is' stories on HLN afternoons excited. Ref gets shoved, player will probably get kicked off the team, life goes on. Not news and not even that exciting at all. Nate • (chatter) 10:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly not a notable event. I'm surprised that even the most parochial of local news broadcasts would bother with a "story" like this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and G7 as author per reasons above. I am now convinced by the previous editors' opinions about this article and WP:NOT#NEWS. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:38, 24 December 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. Courcelles 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle at the New Meadowlands[edit]

(formerly "2010 Philadelphia Eagles - New York Giants game)

2010 Philadelphia Eagles - New York Giants game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2nd attempt at deletion, under a new title. This game is not more notable than any other fourth-quarter comeback, so why should it have its own article? The "National Football League lore" page is here to cover games like these. BwburkeLetsPlays (talk|contribs) 23:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, as I said in my PROD it is a neologism and appears to be made up judging by the complete lack of coverage on google. SmartSE (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article was titled "New Miracle in the New Meadowlands" which didn't have any coverage. The sourcing is probably sufficient for an article now, although I would like to see lasting coverage in the future, to ensure this isn't a flash in the pan. SmartSE (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Keep - I've seen the name "The Miracle at the New Meadowlands" in many sources ([6], [7], [8] and [9]), so it isn't a neologism. I think it would be worth keeping as a section at The Miracle at the Meadowlands. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now but rename, as the Giants and Eagles played two games this year. Recentism notwithstanding, I think that there's a good chance this game may be remembered enough to warrant its own article. It's true there are a lot of fourth-quarter comebacks. It's not true that many involve scoring four touchdowns in the last half of the fourth quarter (I had last glanced at the game when Kevin Boss made his big catch and really thought the Giants had this one in the bag) to overcome a 21-point deficit. It's as true of the original Miracle at the Meadowlands that it was won on an improbable play involving a fumble in the last 30 seconds. It's also the continuation of a sports rivalry that has seen a number of other amazing late-game reversals in a new stadium. To nominate this one for deletion within hours of it being over is, to me, the equivalent of nominating September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks for deletion that evening on the grounds that they weren't more notable than other terrorist attacks. WP:CRYSTAL notwithstanding, sometimes we just know things will be notable before they acquire it through our usual criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 01:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is the first time a game has been won with a punt-return touchdown being the last play this is a very significant game.--Jack Cox (talk) 01:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unaware how this is like any fourth quarter comeback, 28 points in 7:30 left in the game, and the first ever game ending punt return for a touchdown. This should be kept, and not merged with the The Miracle at the Meadowlands.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.29.178 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, If you didn't watch this game first hand you have no idea what kind of game this years. Both reporters, commentators, and spectators like myself can assure this is a once in a lifetime game. This is the best football game I have watched in years. Absolutely memorable. **71.125.79.69 (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's not a valid keep rationale. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Miracle at the Meadowlands has a great article, rating as B-Class on the project's quality scale and a Mid-importance rating on the project's importance scale. (See its talk page.) This article should have an equal opportunity to succeed. Taggart.BBS (talk) 05:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC) (originally written as my ip address on the talk page 71.225.99.75)[reply]
  • 100% Keep and close discussion ASAP. This deletion request was made entirely too hastily by the requester and since the six cited pieces in the article are all referring to this game by the name on the title page, no reason to delete it, merge it, or rename it. --173.54.210.91 (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, A simple google search for news about "The Miracle at new Meadowlands" will bring up multiple articles about this amazing comeback by the Eagles which closely resembles the original The Miracle at the Meadowlands. This is going to be a very big story in the coming days and the current lack of coverage on Google will change. It was a seemingly impossible play by Eagles receiver Desean Jackson with just 14 seconds left in the game on a punt return. A memorable play like this which can be appreciated by sports fans of all caliber deserves its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.212.175 (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why does every new an trendy topic always get hit with a deletion attempt? Do you know what Wikipedia is not? A dusty behind the times and always out of date print encyclopedia like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Anyway, 4th and 26 has an article and that's just one play so please stop with the passive aggressive deletion requests.Sturmovik (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone's guess, about whether this one will or will not be talked about years from now, is equally valid. I suspect that it will be. Because of the history of the Eagles-Giants rivalry, the link to the 1978 game, and the playoff implications of this one, the comeback has more significance than it would have if it had happened in, say, yesterday's game between Arizona and Carolina. Mandsford 15:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This is not just any old game. I won't rehash all of the reasons why (users above have nailed them already) but this is a game that will be talked about and replays will be shown for decades to come. The same way that the original Miracle at the Meadowlands is still flashed back every single time these teams meet, so will this one. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too Soon It was an exciting game, but I think it is too soon to have an article about it. Both teams could still make the playoffs. I think history will be a good judge on this one. The Packers Vs Cardinals game from last years playoffs was the highest scoring playoff game in NFL history and I believe had the most yards by both teams. I am pretty sure it was decided that it was too soon to create an article for that game, and again that was a playoff game. I just feel it is too soon for this one. Gilliganfanatic 01:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep — I can't really improve on any of the reasons already given for keeping this article, but this game will undoubtedly become part of NFL lore for generations to come. — Dale Arnett (talk) 01:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable for several reasons above, worst case MERGE into Notable American Sports Comebacks - 2010-2019 or the like... Bill D (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just like the Music City Miracle, this was an instant classic. As others have said, Eagles-Giants is one of the classic rivalries in the NFL, and has been the stage for several of the league's most memorable moments, but this is likely the most amazing chapter in the history of the series. This was the very first game the Eagles played in the new stadium. I believe it's the first time a team has overcome a 21-point deficit in the last eight minutes of a game without needing overtime to win. I know it's the first walk-off punt return TD in history. This is the latest in the season that a team has overcome a 21-point fourth quarter deficit, and it was a de facto division championship game. It may be the game that wins Michael Vick the MVP award, an amazing story in itself. And it wasn't just one play, it has layers and layers of analysis that has already happened and will almost certainly continue to happen for years. It doesn't matter if the Giants wind up winning the Super Bowl this year. 30 years from now, the names of the players involved, the year, and the score may be trivia questions to the next generation, but children will still be hearing from their parents and grandparents about the Miracle in the New Meadowlands. Amcw7760 (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I beg to differ with BwburkeLetsPlays, who said that this was no more historic than any other fourth quarter comeback. This was the first time in NFL history that a team came back from 21 down to win with only 8+ minutes left in the game, and the first time in NFL history that a game was won with a punt return as time expired. Rodney420 (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think, given the nature of this win, in the fourth quarter with 7:41 left, to score 28 points is a good enough reason to keep this article. However, let's look at the other factors involved. This is, as mentioned before, the first game to be won on a punt return for a touchdown. You have a record being set to cap off one of the best comebacks ever seen. You also have to take into account the sheer amount of history involved in the rivalry of these two teams. They have always been huge rivals and have so much history against one another that this will be just another piece of lore in a historical contest full of them. KevinMS83 (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- This article is only being challenged by disgruntled Giants fans. There was an NFL first (Jackson's TD) and as time passes, will be remembered as a marquee game of the 2010 season. This game was a remarkable comeback. Jmpenzone (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Not only is it one of the greatest comebacks in NFL history with an amazing late in the 4th quarter turnaround and won on the last play, Jackson's punt return for a touchdown, but the term "Miracle at the New Meadowlands" does exist likely coined first by Mick Quick on 94.1 FM WYSP in Philadelphia(the call then rebroadcast nationwide on ESPN radio), talking to Merrill Reese, but as another poster mentioned Wikipedia itself already hosts an article on the first "Miracle at the Meadowlands" which holds rationale for this one existing.(149.168.171.201 (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep - as soon as the game was played, everybody from the fans to the players to the media instantly brought up the historic nature of the game and how it'll be remembered for years to come. While it's obviously not known if it will be remembered as much as the other miracle games, there's no denying that it deserves a Wikipedia article due to the historic nature of the comeback. RPH (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Instant Lore! Without a dobut and they will talk about it and was a wonderful comback end of story! Talladega87 (talk) Talladega87 (talk) 00:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly Keep - One of the top 5 most unbelievable and exciting comebacks of all-time; needs to be remembered properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.220.100 (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
^may be an exaggeration --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a notable collapse that is tied with the biggest collapse in the 4th quarter in Giants history (the other one, however, involved the entire 4th quarter), and among the biggest collapses in NFL history. Since the AFL-NFL merger, only the Monday Night Miracle was a bigger collapse. As such, this game should easily meet WP:N for perpetuity. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Aside from having received significant coverage from numerous reliable independent sources, this game will obviously be remembered for many, many years because of the historic nature of the Eagles' miraculous comeback in the 4th quarter. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have a feeling the person nominating this article is a Giants fan. That has to be the only reason. This is an instant classic, an instant bit of National Football League lore, and will be talked about in perpetuity. (BTW: not an Eagles fan here.) --Kitch (Talk : Contrib) 12:23, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't care one way or another about the Philadelphia Eagles, but if there is gonna be articles for American football's greatest moments, there is no choice but to add this to the annals; it will be far more notable than many of the other amazing games that have changed this game forever. CeleritasSoni (talk) 23:08, 25 December 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 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trade and Investment Promotion Agency[edit]

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

A now-defunct government agency of marginal notability. A merge into Ministry of Economy, Labour and Entrepreneurship could also be an option. GregorB (talk) 23:39, 19 December 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. Courcelles 00:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Bill episodes[edit]

List of The Bill episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual season links: 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26

All the seasons have individual articles, so there is no point in duplicating things by having a complete list as well. WOSlinker (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - List of The Bill episodes is the parent article for the season articles; it should not be deleted. There are several featured lists of television episodes for which there are articles about the seasons as well; this treatment is standard for lengthy television series. See, for example, List of 24 episodes, List of Lost episodes, and List of The Simpsons episodes. Neelix (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - As Neelix stated, a summary of a multi-season television show greatly benefits from a list of its episodes. Although, the detailed information for each episode (such as synopsis/plot) should be removed, and saved for those seasons which have articles. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the season-level articles should be deleted instead—apart from the first few series, The Bill didn't have "seasons" per se, and essentially ran continuously for over 20 years. The breakdown by year has just been done by various episode guide sites to break up the 2,500 into manageable lists. Nothing wrong with basic details and a very brief synopsis for each episode, as per the many example of episode lists on Wikipedia. --Canley (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That would be a good alternative. I don't see any point in having the same information in two places as it means more work to keep both in sync and updated. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I made this suggestion two months ago and carrying it out proved infeasible. I have therefore spent a considerable amount of time over the past two months cleaning up the season articles so that the list of episodes (the parent article) could be shortened to only include the episodes' air dates, prod codes, and titles. The main list is far too long as it is and needs to be shortened as I am in the process of doing; to delete the season articles would be to strip out much important information that should not be included on the main list. Neither the main list nor the season articles should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I hadn't looked at the articles in question for a while and hadn't seen the work you've done on them. I agree, both the whole list as an index and the series-level articles should stay, they don't contain redundant or unwieldy amounts of information. As for keeping them "in sync and updated", The Bill was cancelled a few months ago—there will be nothing to update or sync once the lists are filled out and completed. --Canley (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both the parent list and season articles (though as a British show, shouldn't they be series articles?) per WP:MOSTV#Multiple pages. Both are acceptable under established guidelines. Frickative 16:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Thanks for pointing that out; I'll go change the titles accordingly. Neelix (talk) 17:21, 20 December 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! 16:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danica Dillan[edit]

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

Not yet notable pornographic actress. Fails WP:PORNBIO because she's only been nominated for one well-known award (AVN for 2011). Her ATK "awards" are not well known nor notable as they have not had any independent coverage. Fails general notability guidelines. Recommend that the article is userfied for the creator if she becomes notable later on. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My English is bad.Sorry.1."Her ATK "awards" are not well known"-look this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_Teen_Kingdom and References In the bottom of page.At me simply it is impossible to add them.2.If there are these films - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Ain%27t_Avatar_XXX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Sexipede there should be actors,Which in them "play":)3.Let's leave this page.Ths.Johnsmith877 (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2010

And still.Imagine... I the usual person, want to learn that such - The Human Sexipede... I look wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Sexipede... OK,cool...I Want to learn, who there plays...I look...hmm... Tom Byron...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Byron OK... Sunny Lane ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_Lane OK... Amber Rayne...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Rayne OK... Danica Dillan...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danica_Dillan Oops!pages aren't present! "It isn't well-known enough"... What to me a difference how much it is well-known,The information is necessary to me only. Listen Morbidthoughts. Wiki not a directory-"1 one million rich and well-known people". Wiki the en-cy-clo-pe-dia about all(Small-big;rich-poor;thick-thin;well-known-Not well-known) The most important thing - the information,the information on all. The information should be as much as possible full. Please keep page Danica Dillan.Thx.

Р.S.My english is bad.Sorry.
P.P.S."The best way to remain consecutive is to change together with circumstances"-Churchill.

Johnsmith877 (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2010

I understand your wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia argument, but the notability guidelines are still important. An article about a notable movie does not have to wikilink to everyone in its cast. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simple question.Article about cinema is.Articles about all actors playing this cinema aren't present. Why? Censorship, how in China? :)Johnsmith877(talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 — Johnsmith877 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking but censorship has nothing to do with this discussion. We have notability standards for pornographic actors. If they aren't notable enough, then they shouldn't get an article. Dismas|(talk) 09:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well.To me your logic is clear.You haven't understood me.I suggest to consider it,not only and it is not so much, as the pornoactress, but as the "actress" played a known film.After a while we should do page again.You haven't convinced me.I against page removal.

P.S.Сдаётся мне ,что Данила Багров был прав:)

Johnsmith877 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep — Nomination for a major award plus winning minor awards should be enough to establish notability. While not strictly the case with WP:PORNBIO, I would be inclined to be flexible and keep. Wexcan  Talk  19:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't really win minor awards. The ATK thing is a monthly feature like a centerfold for a pay website. If Playboy Playmates are not considered inherently notable,[10], neither are ATK babes of the month. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Morbidthoughts .You are mistaken.Please Look at references--Johnsmith877 (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still don't see any Significant coverage of the subject in those "references" (more like a casual mention), so I don't see them meeting even WP:GNG criteria for inclusion … just a relatively new porn actress who has yet to make a name for herself. — 70.21.16.94 (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Morbidthoughts. Wexcan  Talk  15:30, 27 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Bossier Mall[edit]

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

Last AFD closed as no consensus after only one week due to someone digging up sources. Closer inspection, however, shows that the sources dug up were only tangential: one merely mentioned that GGP bought the mall and several others; one mentioned a store's opening in passing; and the rest were similarly trivial. There are some hits on Gnews, but they are only incidental, trivial coverage and nothing dating from before 2002 (the mall opened in 1982). For example, I know the mall had a Service Merchandise in it, but the only source I can find to verify that is a real estate listing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the mall is the subject of in-depth coverage by reliable sources (which I have just added to the article). Additionally, there is quite a bit of coverage in the Google News archives from the 1990s and a bit from the 1980s but Google only reveals it when you select a custom date range. (Google News is quirky like that.) Here are the articles, not revealed by the first AfD, that discuss the mall and its retail prospects in depth, not merely as a transaction or a single store opening. - Dravecky (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mahfoufi, Michelle (January 9, 2005). "The pie is getting bigger". The Times. Shreveport, LA. p. I1.
    • Jennings, Angel (July 14, 2005). "Boardwalk, mall compete for shoppers in Bossier City". The Times. Shreveport, LA. p. B6.
  • Keep: Sufficiently large and sufficiently notable in the region for retention.--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above added refs; not sure which ones were added after AFD 1, but these seem to be solid. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to be an important mall mentioned in multiple sources. Dough4872 05:05, 23 December 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. I'm going to assume good faith that what CactusWriter said about DreamFocus's point is true. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Nicola Raphael[edit]

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

Once again, I'm on the fence. Although this was a tragedy, this seems to violate WP:ONEEVENT, as I cannot find widespread coverage about this girl's suicide. There are zero Gnews hits for her name (searching without the quotes resulted in false positives), and a regular Google search resulted in either blogs or just passing mentions. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I just discovered from looking at the creator's talk page that the original version of the article was deleted and salted. I guess I'll try {{db-bio}}. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've very reluctantly restored this after I deleted it under A7 without seeing the open AfD (mistook it for a hangon tag). Any other administrator may feel the new article meets a speedy deletion criterion (I don't, although the original Nicola Raphael arguably did - I initially overlooked the fairly substantial expansion from that article). In that case don't let my restoration get in the way. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of results under google news search by simply clicking archives as generalnewssearch only seems to bring up things from the current month — Preceding unsigned comment added by RR1953 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also how is this suicide any less notable than any of the others listed among notable suicides in the bullying infobox — Preceding unsigned comment added by RR1953 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per WP:1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Unlike the "see other" articles about suicides listed on the page, I find no evidence of significant results in this case (i.e., legislation, etc.). Unfortunately, this is only another of the hundreds of teenage suicides which occur each year as listed here. — CactusWriter (talk) 23:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copied from additions to the article as 2 examples shoowing notability and influence outside the single event in campaigns/charity and in parliament:
The case was also one of those cited by the daily record in the setting up of their "Save our Kids Campaign" as seen here[11]
The Issue was also raised in the Scottish Parliament by Lyndsay McIntosh MSP : "The minister mentioned children in his opening remarks, so I will channel his thoughts towards youngsters' being bullied. We should think about 16-year-old Nicola Raphael or 12-year-old Emma, who attended Broughton High School, both of whom committed suicide as a result of being bullied at school. I can think of nothing more crucial to the quality of life of our youngsters than that."[12] RR1953 (talk) 14:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also argue that another item making this suicide distinct is the organ donation angle along with the nhs campaign and the the various stories and tv documentary . the organ donation intentions dated long prior to the suicide and the campaign was much after so that would seem to me notability outside one event. RR1953 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that WP:BLP1E is overused, and the question is really whether the event (which is what the article is about) was notable by Wikipedia standards. I'm sorry to say that I don't think it meets WP:EVENT, based on [13]. The coverage was limited to Glasgow, with one mention in another Herald-- the one in Miami-- in the course of some people news about Marilyn Manson. Teen suicide, bullying and intolerance are all important; unfortunately, examples of this happen so often that even the story a current victim is soon replaced when it happens again. Mandsford 16:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ample coverage and it had lasting impact. Clicking the Google news archive search at the top of the AFD, I find one article straight away.
NEWS SPECIAL: schools get radical in a determined bid to protect...
Pay-Per-View - Evening Times - ProQuest Archiver - Jun 10, 2002
The issue of bullying has been pushed up the political agenda after a number of high-profile cases, including the suicide of Nicola Raphael who took her
Here we see a major newspaper says that this suicide and other high profile cases caused some changes to happen. Since you have to pay to read the entire article, I can't tell what "radical" things the schools had done to protect future victims of bullying. Dream Focus 03:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, if you are unable to read the news article, I'll clarify it for you. That news article is about a local conference for Glasgow parents, teachers and kids to discuss anti-bullying measures. Nicola's name is mentioned only in that one sentence in the article -- likely because it was a local name among this list of the many suicides throughout the UK. Her death in 2001 occurred a year prior to the June 2002 meeting. The meeting actually did not occur until there were high profile cases as seen on the list above.
Moreover, as written, our Wikipedia article is disingenuous. The "Save Our Kids" campaign did not result from Nicola Raphael's death, but rather the September 2002 death of Emma Morrison. (See the face of our campaign after her death touched the hearts of readers across the country.) The quote from a brief 2-minute announcement by the local Glasgow MP states Emma's sudden and horrendous death resulted in a campaign called "Save Our Kids" by a national daily tabloid newspaper.
There is no cause-and-effect here. There has been no lasting impact demonstrated. — CactusWriter (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A local suicide caused them to take action in that area. The news article is from Jun 10, 2002, so had nothing to do the Save Our Kids campaign that came after the September 2002 death of the other girl. They had a conference because of the local suicide of Nicola Raphael, and made changes because of it. Thus it had a lasting effect. Dream Focus 20:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again: A local meeting was not held as you state "because of the local suicide of Nicola Raphael" but was held because of numerous suicides throughout the UK. Please cite what changes were made? What was the lasting effect? — CactusWriter (talk) 21:33, 23 December 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--Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battling companion[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-notable neologism, not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. A custom google search of sources the anime and manga project regards as reliable hasn't yielded anything sufficient to support an article. Malkinann (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly considered that, but I don't think the sources support its inclusion as a list entry. It's used as a video game term in a review for Chrono Trigger, and yes, there can be some bleed between the cultures, but only one source defines it, and I am not sure how reliable this source is. --Malkinann (talk) 23:17, 19 December 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, withdrawn by nominator Mandsford 16:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Musil[edit]

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

I note that this article has never been taken to AfD, though it has been speedied and its companion article was deleted back in 2008 at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_21#Brats_Without_Borders.2C_Inc.. My research does not indicate multiple third-party WP:RS that she meets our basic notability guidelines. The article is certainly rife with primary sources. I did find a Voice of America Ghit that Ms Musil is a figure of some import in the army brat network, but it's more of a forum hit than a bonafide news cite. And the awards: an IP has been insisting that the film's 21 festival selections constitute 21 awards,with some insults directed my way for not appreciating this. In fact, according to the primary source, the film won five awards of some kind at minor film festivals, not notable enough that Musil would meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. There's some been some unpleasantness from this IP who has taken it upon his or herself to remove maintenance tags, insult me and vandalize my Talk page, and there may be more of that here, I'm afraid. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has ample citations that the documentary that Musil made (and is mentioned in the article) won six film awards.

The documentary includes narration by former military brat and noted actor and country and Western singer Kris Kristopherson, a personal interview of General Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. former supreme commander of US military forces in the first gulf war (he is also former military brat) and numerous highly recognized authors in the field of military brat research and study. This along with numerous everyday military brats.

And the Military Channel, a subsidiary of the Discovery channel is getting ready to air the documentary (sometime this month).

  • All of this information was (already) available in the article, it's references and links were all there before this persons began posting spurious banners (about deletion).

For these reasons I ask any investigating admin to warn or block this individual for misusing the Wikipedia process.

It might be funny if it weren't so sad, given the serious subject of the documentary-- that this person is smearing for some unknown reason--

An award-winning documentary about the lives, stresses, difficulties and struggles of American military children.

In the US once a crime has been proven, then aggravating circumstances are taken into account. Although not a crime, this persons claims against the article are an abuse of the Wikipedia process--

And I would say that the fact that this is a documentary about US military children that this person is targeting via misuse of Wikipedia protocol-- I would say that is an aggravating circumstance and I hope that is also taken into account.

The Wikipedia review process is for serious purposes and is not supposed to be a plaything (like a chess game) for ones personal edification entertainment.

Sincerely,

98.245.148.9 (talk) 22:36, 19 December 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. per the improvements to the article (non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dominican films[edit]

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

This is just a directory for mostly non-notable films. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This directory has been around since 2007 and although Armburst may opine that the list consist of "non-notable" films, that is debatable. Also what spurred his decision to delete it was that I made an improvement to it by redirecting the page from List of Dominican Republican films to its current name. I agree that improvements have to be made, yet deleting it seems unreasonable, besides there are far worse pages around. Lastly am obviously willing to edit it, so why turn down improving an article? --El Mayimbe (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If "non-notable" means "not notable enough to have their own articles" then I don't see a problem, because this is one of the things that lists are for. However, if the list contains really marginal items, it has to be purged rather than deleted. I'd suggest establishing some criteria for inclusion, and I've tagged the list with {{list-cleanup}} with this in mind. GregorB (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per balance in adressing the unfortunate systemic bias inherent in Wikiedia... specially as notability to the Dominican Republic is fine for en.Wikipedia. And that many do not currently have articles would be more a reason to create such articles and further improve Wikiedia for its readers, than to declare them somehow non-notable in that lack and then decide to delete the list because the encouraged articles have not yet been written. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the bigger scheme Category:Lists of films by country of production. Lots of these films seem notable, with a few being screened at film festivals and winning awards at them. Hardly surprising a fair chunk of them don't have articles, considering the number of missing English-language films on WP. Lugnuts (talk) 10:37, 20 December 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--Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chrecessmas[edit]

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

PROD contested by author, who admits the quoted blog is the only source they can find. I can't find any reliable sources, so I don't see it as notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Georgia guy (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. A whopping three Ghits: one Wikipedia, two blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 20:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's clearly not a G1, as it is in plain English, so I have removed that tag - and I really don't see any other categories it would fit. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prod2ed it (my spell checker didn't object to prod2ed - weird) saying that while I quite liked the source, this was no way Wikipedia material. I stand by that. BTW - here in the UK I get 2 Wikipedia hits, one blog and one personal site. (The second WP is a user who seems to get all the AfDs listed somehow.) Peridon (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly made up one afternoon, and not picked up by any reliable source; compare Festivus or Kwanzaa. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 22 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rehab: The Overdose[edit]

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

Future recording per WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 14:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL for several reasons. It says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The release of Rehab: The Overdose is a notable studio album release (Lecrae's last studio album peaked at number 17 on the Billboard 200) and it is almost certain to happen—several sources have reported the album's release date (January 11, 2011), including Lecrae's own record label. Additionally, the album is available for pre-order through several online music stores. Also, Rehab: The Overdose is not an "individual [item] from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names". The article isn't "Lecrae's Fifth Studio Album," it's a specific event almost certain to occur, as confirmed by the record label and artist themselves. Before you choose to delete, please read the article and check the sources. If you have any questions or problems with what I'm saying, you can add them below or contact me on my talk page. Thank you, Tim Mckee (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tim Mckee is right. WP:CRYSTAL prohibits vague speculation about an unknown future. If something is definitely going to happen in the near future, it is not speculation to say so. This is a viable "future album" article until Jan. 11. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place.. Mo ainm~Talk 22:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You got that from the WP:CRYSTAL guideline, but if you read the guideline in its entirety, you'll find that what you said is NOT a reason to delete. It's just a statement that qualifies someone's research of a near-future event that may or may not be confirmed. This one is confirmed, so the statement you quoted does not mean that it won't happen. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Albums of notable persons are notable per WP:NALBUMS. Tracklist, name, coverart and release date are all confirmed and sourced. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:34, 19 December 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--Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daba script[edit]

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

There seems to be no mention in reliable sources of the script. Fences&Windows 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC) p.s. There's no doubt about the existence of the Dongba script. Fences&Windows 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator unless someone can reveal this actually does exist. Georgia guy (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a rather confused mess that is not at all helped by the fact that web searches almost universally show text that is clearly copied from Wikipedia (and at that mostly copied from an earlier, ungrammatical version of the article). Searches with Google books shows some confusion that either the Mosuo use the same Dongba pictograms as the maybe or maybe not related Nakhi, or that they don't have a written language at all and that there is some attempt being made to give them one based on the Dongba system. It's possible that Daba here means the same thing as Dongba and Daba are also the words for the shamanistic religions in both groups. At this point I think this ought to be deleted as it is propagating a lot of misinformation online; if someone sources it adequately it could be recreated, but it's telling that the article on the Mosuo references what seems to be the only decent modern work on the subject but does not use it to reference this claim. Mangoe (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The source is baidu.baike.com which is a wikipedia-alike, a Chinese attempt at something like WP, so not a RS. A search on 達巴文, the Chinese name for the article, turns up WP, baidu.baike and a trivial dictionary entry. The external link at the Chinese version of the page is www.mosuoproject.org but that is far from clear: here it talks about scripts as modern creations, so not the one described in the article.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:08, 20 December 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 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horizons Companies[edit]

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

Local media company employing 30 people which does not seem to have any national significance. Cannot find evidence that it passes WP:ORG. Nancy talk 18:54, 19 December 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. my reading of this is that this comes under WP:FORK Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000–2001[edit]

Allegations of Israeli espionage operation 2000–2001 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First, a caution based on previous discussions I've seen on this topic. (A couple of people were blocked following some heated discussions on previous incarnations of this article).

  • Please keep this conversation focused on the topic at hand, whether or not this article should be included in the encyclopedia based on Wikipedia's policies for the inclusion of articles. DO NOT make comments of ANY kind about your fellow participants in the discussion. Keep in mind that this article is not that important--whether it is deleted or kept, it is not the end of the world. Please don't let this discussion have a negative effect on your day. If conflict-related articles are getting you down, try looking at pictures of kittens or listening to Pachelbel's Canon:

That being said, this article should be deleted as a content-fork of material already in Art student scam. Note that even the title of the article violates the Manual of Style (MOS) guideline WP:ALLEGED--". When alleged or accused are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." According to this article, the "allegations of an Israeli espionage operation" come from "news outlets." Actually, looking at the sources, what we have are various journalists speculating that the observation that people claiming to be Israeli art students visited several Drug Enforcement Agency facilities might indicate that the young people were involved in an espionage operation (generally along with advancing other possible explanations for the observation). By collecting the bits of news commentary that most advance the idea that the "art students" may have been spies, the article presents a non-neutral perspective, nor could a neutral article be constructed along these lines. So, both the article title and the article itself are non-neutral and not compliant with policy for the inclusion of articles. (See:WP:POVFORK, which seems to describe pretty well what's happened with this article). CordeliaNaismith (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, possibly rename to something more appropriate. And, ugh, not this again. Why do we have to keep dragging stuff like this back up? The notability of this article is based upon the event that Israeli students were arrested for being part of this "alleged spy ring" and then deported. It doesn't matter if the spy ring is alleged or not, since this article is about the events surrounding the government's reaction to it. This article is not a content fork of Art student scam, it is a split from it, so as to not give undue weight for the fairly extensive amount of information on this subject in that higher-level article. I agree with the point on the title. I personally feel that it should just be Israeli Espionage Operation, but I suppose that wouldn't be NPOV. Either way, if you look at sources like this, it is quite clear that the events surrounding this sort of scam/spying are notable and were reported on in numerous news outlets. SilverserenC 19:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially the present article already had an AfD, which can be found under WP:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam. I managed to prevent a "delete" outcome of that discussion by rewriting the article so as to give the conspiracy nonsense its proper (i.e. little) weight. Some conspiracy fans were not happy with this and made the article unbalanced again. The result was the second Afd, under WP:Articles for deletion/Art student scam, which again ended with "no consensus" concerning further existence of that article, but with a consensus that the conspiracy cruft must be reduced again. Instead discussion of the conspiracy theory was moved to the present new article. Although the case is somewhat complicated, this action had many of the characteristics of a POV fork and comes close to recreation of a deleted article. It's time now for a clear "delete" outcome as an unambiguous precedent, so that in the future this nonsense can be dealt with without further huge discussions. Hans Adler 19:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. I'm not sure where you're getting that information. SilverserenC 01:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not eligible for WP:CSD#G4 because it hasn't been deleted as a result of a discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Struck.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Concerned about how much it relies on Salon but it is not so bad that it meets deletion standards per NOT and the GNG is met. There was also a discussion after the AfD about the split that was an attempt at consensus. I think it should have waited a bit longer for some more work and opinions but this AfD will probably result in those coming up. See Talk:Art student scam#Again: Split? Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Referenced, and satisfies notability as well as other relevant guidelines and policies. Edison (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with perhaps a rename, if needed to comply with article naming policy. The content of this article handily satisfies the notability requirement, with government announcements and mainstream news articles about it. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The topic is notable, but the current treatment of the topic runs afoul of WP:FRINGE, and the problem is very hard to fix without merging the article back to where it came from. The problem is that the media like to write about exciting conspiracy theories, and are not particularly interested in writing about the boring explanations why they are groundless, once these become available. That's because we all want to read about the first kind of topics much more than about the second. As a result, we don't have much specific material explaining why the conspiracy theory is groundless, and all those speculations that we are reporting make the article unbalanced. (There is enough in the existing reliable sources to get a clear picture of what actually happened, and I explained this in an earlier AfD. However, there is not enough in the reliable sources to explain the actual facts behind the conspiracy theory without original research.) This is why the previous AfDs tended very strongly to deletion. I am very much surprised that at this AfD this argument does not seem to play a big role any more. Is nobody reading the old AfDs? Hans Adler 00:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a "speculation" about "allegations" article. This is a POV fork of Art Studen blah blah blah.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is already covered in depth under 9/11 conspiracy theories. Marokwitz (talk) 20:10, 24 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agassi–Rafter rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JL 09 talkcontribs    18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's little doubt something good could be made of this article. Reliable sources cover it, and describe it as a rivalry.[14][15] I recall that matches between the two were particularly good, because Agassi was a great returner of serve and Rafter a legendary serve-volleyer. Just a comment because unless the article's improved I have no objection to its deletion. As pointed out, the current article is policy violant. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think part of the problem is that this article (and it seems all the Category:Tennis rivalries articles) doesn't articulate what it means by "rivalry". If all it means is that they were contemporaneous top-level players, who therefore frequently faced each other in finals of major tournaments, then I don't think the topic is notable. For the "rivalry" to be notable, I think a particular animosity or competitiveness beyond what they typically demonstrated towards other players of similar levels needs to be substantiated. Otherwise this is just "routine news reporting on things like ... sports" -- each and every major tennis tournament will automatically have two pairs (mens and womens) of "rivals" in the finals. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another pairing of two players that may have played each other a few times in semi finals but nothing more than that. to create an article about that means we might as well create articles for any pairs that have met in grand slams. LibStar (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No substantive content or references to indicate a notable rivalry Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 24 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blueprint Cru[edit]

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

Not a notable group. Nothing from outside the competition, did not win the competition. Has not won anything, produced anything, or done anything else to warrant inclusion under the relevant guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Completely non-notable dance group. Appearance on ABDC is fleeting, and does not generate notability in and of itself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being a runner up on ABDC does not guarantee notability and no notable further achievements have really happened. LibStar (talk) 12:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above rationales.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:23, 25 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tehiyah Day School[edit]

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

Elementary schools are not notable, no independent sources, nothing special about this school Thisbites (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind i found a few sources for it and it's mentioned extensively in a book on local jewsThisbites (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are the same sources that I found - a mention in the Chronicle about a possible molestation, a couple of calendar-type items about a concert, and coverage in JWeekly which I did not consider to be a significant outside reliable source. That was it, and that seems like about the minimal notice that any school anywhere would achieve. To me it did not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - It's been standard practice for a long time to merge and redirect primary schools to their schools district page or locality, wherever possible. See WP:WPSCHOOLS. The schools project is a bit short staffed at the moment, and the bots have been down for a long time, otherwise these uncontroversial merges would already have been carried out. Note that sources alone do not confer notability - they just confirm it.Kudpung (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JL 09 talkcontribs    18:24, 19 December 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 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Wind central[edit]

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

Wiki does not appear to be notable, a quick google search fails to bring up any relevant independent sources mentioning the site. nn123645 (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It gets some passing mentions like this and this. The most substantial coverage I could find was a USA Today article on wikis that uses it as an example. However, this is not sufficient coverage for me to say it meets notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 22 December 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 00:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

V4 Engine Management System[edit]

V4 Engine Management System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product by non-notable manufacturer; article lacks references. A Google search seems to confirm my opinion. Drmies (talk) 18:22, 19 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan L. Langer[edit]

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

I believe that this plausible-looking article is a hoax. Apart from minor fixes, it is entirely the work of user Gryffon (talk · contribs), who also wrote the undoubted hoax article Bunaka about a non-existent Indonesian island. Anything this author contributes therefore needs careful scrutiny.

There is a long list of references, but it is noticeable that they are all off-line. Although one would not expect much on-line "footprint" for someone who died in 1982, one would expect Google to turn up something for a man with so varied and distinguished a career (Navy, Yale, CIA, Goldman Sachs); but I can find only obvious WP mirrors. Notably, there is nothing in Scholar, though he is said to have been a Sterling Professor at Yale and to have written or co-authored "many influential publications."

Some checks are possible on-line, and they come up negative:

  • Howard J. Leavitt's Tales of Valor, cited as the reference for his Navy Cross, is available with preview at Google Books. The cited pages, pp.133-4, are among those visible; in fact the whole of Chapter 6, WWII Navy Cross, is visible, and Langer is not mentioned.
  • The Distinguished Flying Cross Society website has an Honor Roll, and his name is not there.
  • Awardsandhonors.com has a list of recipients of the Presidential Citizens Medal and his name is not there.
  • The images are all said to have come from the collection of the Yale University Office of Public Affairs. That collection is available on-line, and the portraits are ordered alphabetically, but Langer is not there.

Anyone with access to the records of Yale, particularly Jonathan Edwards College, could make further checks, but I think the false book reference and the absence of any confirmation are enough to say delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some stuff that should have been easy to find (anything referring to the titles of his supposed publications, or the existence of the "Association of American Historiographers") turned up nothing in Google, and I was unable to verify anything else. On that basis I am inclined to believe the nominator's supposition that this is all an elaborate hoax. But regardless, it fails verifiability. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's one more. I first misread "Deke quarterly" as "Duke quarterly" and wasn't able to find it. But the actual Deke quarterly is online at hathitrust.org. Volume 43 (the volume cited here) is not included, but appears from the numbering of the other volumes to date from around 1925, long before the events it is claimed to document. The 1940 and 1941 volumes (volumes 58 and 59) have significantly fewer than 342 pages, even ignoring the fact that the issue number is early in the page range. So the citation information "The Deke quarterly, Volume 43, Issue 2, p. 342" for his 1940 Yale graduation, DKE membership, and summa cum laude honors appears to be completely bogus rather than merely having a typographical error or two in it. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing checks out here, looks like a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 07:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a sample, ref no 22 is bogus. The JSTOR page[16] for Vol 3, No. 6 of American Sociological Review shows that it was published in 1938, not in 1954. Nsk92 (talk) 07:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nsk92: In dubio he made a mistake with the volume number. But ignoring this mistake for the source American Sociological Review, Vol. 3, No. 6 (Dec., 1954), pp. 770-783: No. 6 of 1954, Vol. 19, are articles Planning an Observation Room and Group Laboratory (pp. 771-781, by Robert F. Bales, Ned A. Flanders) and News and Announcements (pp. 782-784). The bogus sources are already examined by JohnCD above and indicate for a hoax. But please dont forget to delete the images too! Otherwise this images will stay online and produce false search hits for the hoax of Jonathan L. Langer. I wounder what person the photos realy show, I tried various searches (photo size, black&white, etc) but not found this images anywhere. --Martin H. (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the very comprehensive nomination and David Eppstein and Nsk92's comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, I can't find any results related to the person. Even if he's real person, this would have meet the notability. Even if he's not a real person, the article would be a hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 11:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tend to doubt a hoax accusation against a long-time (2006 to present) editor with over 1,000 edits and what appears to be a clean record, with no prior warnings or blocks. I think that it's more likely that the editor relied upon bad information (and perhaps is the victim of a hoax). I support a delete because of the obvious inaccuracy of the content. Mandsford 17:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to AGF, but a false book reference, with page number, is hard to explain; also (which led me to check this article) the same editor input in 2007 the just-detected and now-deleted hoax article Bunaka, complete with detailed description, photograph, and lat. and long. of an Indonesian island of 348 km2 and 6,750 population which simply doesn't exist. JohnCD (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see now what you're referring to, though it wasn't obvious at first glance; all records of the creation of the article "Bunaka" and his edits in March 2007 aren't visible in his listing. Interesting-- you can't spell Bunaka without b-u-n-k. I'm surprised that there hasn't been a block, let alone a ban. Mandsford 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per the above, there are serious verifibility problems. The main contributor is already a suspected hoaxer. Many of the sources don't say what they reference. Others cannot possibly have even existed at the time. Even if this individual did exist, there would also be notability problems. No awards listings for the Navy Cross (such as [17] [18] [19]) list Langer or close spellings. According to USS Yorktown (CV-5)#Battle of the Coral Sea, only one TBD was recorded as lost, and all of the crew was killed. The bit about Aleksandrovna sounds really fishy. Given that the Navy Cross bit was proven false, he would fail WP:MILPEOPLE, even if everything else could be verified. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And it just doesn't sound like a normal Wikipedia article: "...he took up the position as Vice-Chairman...", "...dedicated his life towards...", "...resigned only after a year in the company to join the United States Navy following the Bombing of Pearl Harbor...", "...when he was recruited by President Lyndon B. Johnson...", "Despite retiring due to health problems aggravated by his injuries sustained during World War II, he would remain highly active until the end of his days, summiting many of the world's major mountains..." and so forth. Sounds like a puff job. RoyGoldsmith (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nomination as a hoax. Anotherclown (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Nice ctach by the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Ban creator. Of course, creator is always able to respond if claims here are unjust. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Danar[edit]

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

It looks like this article is an ad for an unknown audio engineer and i think it doesn't meet WP:BIO and WP:V. Some coverage from at least one reliable third-party source would change my mind. Ubot16 (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable. The tone of the article doesn't help: "Robin is a modern version of what the music industry once was." Oh, please. Previous nomination was closed as "no consensus" due mainly to lack of participation in the AfD discussion. That was two years ago but the article hasn't gotten any better. --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JL 09 talkcontribs    18:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Possibly a notable producer, but the hype in this article needs to be significantly toned down. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GNews, when prodded sufficiently, coughs up less than ten hits, all of them passing mentions in reviews of various recordings. Mangoe (talk) 15:49, 20 December 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. All sorts of reasons apply: no context, test page, patent nonsense, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arjunrjarjunrj[edit]

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

What's going on here? Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete under WP:NOTWEBSPACE. This looks like a program someone's writing (but not in my old language, COBOL...). Whatever it's supposed to do and whichever language it is in, it's definitely not encyclopaedic and I an trying to find a CSD category for it. Just looked closer. It's equivalent to one I had to do when training - we had to do a prog for calculating interest on a building society's accounts. (We were given a disk with the necessary data on it, which proved impossible to use properly - so I rewrote the test data...). This is basically not sorry someone's coursework project. Peridon (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BASIC-ally.... Peridon (talk) 21:54, 19 December 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 00:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmogrid[edit]

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

Non-notable product, promotional article sourced only to compnay website. One Google News hit, for the company, not the product; zero on Books, one on Scholar is a peripheral mention. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The lone google news result is a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 22 December 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Hamman[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable other than he was found out for lying about being a doctor, limited and localised media coverage, also refer WP:BLP1E, contested prod. MilborneOne (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that is notable enough IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:BLP1E, which says

    as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role. Bolding mine.

    This individual is covered in least 229 pieces of news among a broad range of media sources in several countries. Thus, according to BLP1E, he easily passes the notability threshold. Basket of Puppies 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is poorly written and needs a thorough rewrite, but the sources provided - and the many other sources available - are more than enough to prove notability. The coverage about him is not "limited and localised" as nominator said; he was covered at length by ABC, CBS, and other major national sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable due to national media coverage. As an aside, its similarity to Catch Me If You Can is interesting. Thanks. --Inetpuppy (talk) 04:44, 20 December 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. Courcelles 00:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rihanna tours[edit]

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

A list of Rihanna's tours is not required. She has only had four tours and the information listed is trivial. It is also sourced from other wikipedia pages which is not appropriate. -- (Lil_℧niquℇ №1) | (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Rihanna's tour page is not going to be on the level of the List_of_Beyoncé_Knowles_concert_tours page any time soon!--mikomango (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think all it needs is some expansion, which really wouldn't take that long to do. I don't think this should be deleted. Maybe re-direct to her main article. I will try to fix it up a little bit though. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 20:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This "list" appears to only sum up the information contained within the tour articles. I see it more of a navigational page than a list of tours. The tours can easily be accessible from the Rihanna template. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 23:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:WEDONTNEEDIT is not a good argument. This collects and formats a list of articles with supplemental details, fleshed out with some non-notable performances that wouldn't merit their own articles and so the info has no other place to go. It's too lengthy to be merged back into Rihanna. As for whether the navigational template is sufficient, this list has many more tours listed (such as ones in which she was not the main act, apparently) and plenty more information that the template's bare article links does not. As WP:CLN explains, one format does not preclude others, particularly where the other format has benefits particular to it, as here. postdlf (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepJagoperson (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to apparent nom implication, Rihanna doesn't seem to be going away, article will grow further over time. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:00, 26 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Daeges[edit]

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

Non-notable minor leaguer. Normally I'd merge it into the Red Sox, but after playing in 9 games in 2009 and no games in 2010, even after searching through sources I'm not positive where he stands in the organization, if anywhere, so merging may not be a good move here if he has one foot out the door. Recanting that, though I still suggest a merge. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Keep per expansion and reliable sources player has been injured[20] and we shouldn't crystall ball his way out of the organization. Prior to his major ankle injury, he was definitely one of the top prospects in the organization.--TM 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether he has "one foot out of the door" or might play this spring for the Pawtucket Red Sox, there is no showing of independent notability, and he doesn't get a pass under WP:ATHLETE. I think that a stub was started under the assumption that he would make the big leagues because he'd been drafted 150th overall, but there's no basis for a stub. Mention the brief text "Zach Daeges (born November 16, 1983 in Omaha, Nebraska) is a professional baseball outfielder in the Boston Red Sox organization. Daeges was drafted by Boston Red Sox in the 6th Round of the 2006 MLB Draft. He plays with the AAA Pawtucket Red Sox" wherever it seems significant, but no need for a merger discussion. Mandsford 18:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much more than is currently in the article can be written and sourced about the player; deleting the article and not redirecting it would not be helpful to Wikipedia.--TM 15:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the article again; he was a 2nd team All American and there are 2 reliable, independent sources which cover him and his career in detail (from the Portland Press Herald and Providence Journal). I would suggest that at over 5,000k in length makes it a poor merge and considering the sources and accomplishments, the article passes GNG and the threshold of "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team".--TM 16:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone explain how a second team All-American baseball player is not notable based on gaining "...attention as an individual. not just a player for a notable team"? It would seem that players on a list such as this are recognized as one of the foremost players at their position by collegiate officials, an indication of notability.--TM 15:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
College baseball honors have been determined to not be of lasting notability by consensus see the baseball subsection of WP:ATHLETE for criteria. Players need to have reached the Major Leagues or been the subject of multiple in-depth national reporting. The reporting here seems to be regional in nature and somewhat limited, for instance the Providence article is entirely about his rehabbing from an injury. Spanneraol (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is notable from his college days regardless of what happened professionally per Wikipedia:ATHLETE#College athletes: "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team". The All-American awards are a national award and obviously he gained media attention for them. I'd also argue that he satisfies criteria #1: "Have won a national award"; though the All American team is an award per se, I think it can be looked at as such.--TM 16:40, 27 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artel Jarod Walker[edit]

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

This actor appears to fail our notability guidelines WP:ACTOR. There also appear to be no solid sources whatsoever.

There are some edits in the history of this article claiming that this person is also known as "Artel Kayàru" or "Artel Great!" (an identification imdb also makes), although a new editor has disputed this. I can't verify that these persons are the same. And, in any case, none of their alleged alternative names seems to yield any solid sources to give us material to write an article, or to testify to notability.

The identification is an interesting puzzle, but ultimately may be irrelevant as this fails our guidelines anyway.

  • Please note, File:Ajw2.JPG purports to identify Walker, and may need removed if this can't be established. Scott Mac 16:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: many actors use pseudonyms. They simply require sourcing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(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)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unfortunately, no reliable sources have been found.--Scott Mac 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suppose your Google-foo is broken. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is sourcable as having received an Independent Spirit Award nomination for 'Best Debut Performance' for his work in Dahmer, for which role he used the screen-name of "Artel Kayaru".[21]. The roles is attributed on IMDB to the stage name "Artel Great". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in researching, it is easily found that "Artel Jarod Walker" is sourcable through The New York Times as having had a role in Save the Last Dance[22]... a role attributed to the stage name "Artel Great" on IMDB. AND "Artel Kayaru" is sourcable through The New York Times as having had several more of the roles[23] attributed on IMDB to the stage name "Artel Great". So now we have multiple reliable sources that connect "Artel Jarod Walker" and "Artel Kayaru" to the stage name "Artel Great". So as he asked for sources and they have been presented, perhaps User:Scott MacDonald will revert his several reversions of my attempts to improve the Walker article through regular editing? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This fails the notability guideline. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one? WP:ENT or WP:ANYBIO? Or is it that you see New York Times as not being a "solid" source? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a NYT story. It takes data from All Media Guide, as do many pages on the New York Times site. Fences&Windows 23:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Verification of an asserted fact is never limited to only from an "article" or "story". As does any decent news publication, The New York Times gets their information from many places... and it is by their established and continued reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that, as a source, they are deemed reliable. And yes, the NYT film listings may use pocket summaries attributed to AMG, but so what? What is also found at the bottom of each NYT film listing is the name "InBaseline". Quite important to note and remember. The New York Times Company set up InBaseline, as an entire division dedicated solely to fact-checking and accuracy of film information they share.[24][25][26] If information published in the NYT is provided by their own subsidiary InBaseLine, the information can be seen and accepted as far more reliable and accurate than IMDB, specially as (unlike IMDB) NYT freely shares the editorial standards and practices used in their verifying information they publish.[27] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per NotJustYet. There has been a lot of grief because SPAs and Socks have been playing fast and loose with images in relation to this individual. Fine. That issue is being decided elsewhere and no article ever "needs" an image. Toward this article and its subject, I am convinced through inter-relationship of screen names as verifiable in reliable sources, that "Artel Jarod Walker", "Artel Kayaru", and "Artel Great" are screen names of the same person as represented by various on-screen film credits... specially as being credited under various names is not at all uncommon in the industry. That said... and in accepting the three names represent the one actor... it is my determination that under whichever name one wishes to research, the individual's career falls just a bit short of meeting WP:ENT, the lack of coverage under the various screen names fails WP:GNG, and the single nomination fails the WP:ANYBIO request for either a win or multiple nominations. I might expect that when/if this changes, a properly asserted and sourced article could return in the future. If/when it does, I hope the SPAs stay away. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The small amount of coverage received for the part in Dahmer is not enough to establish notability. I am not convinced that the different Artels are all definitely the same person, particularly with the strange goings on with the photos. Fences&Windows 00:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well... I seriously doubt the photo-hoaxers have been able to bribe the staff at The New York Times, InBaseline, or AMG to act against their own interests. However, I do agree that by this meager career and lack of coverage, an article on this individual is certainly not yet suitable for Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:43, 22 December 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 Bucks Fizz (band). Courcelles 21:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Jaxx[edit]

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

This was just listed at AFD and closed as redirect but it turns out the article was never tagged with the AFD notice so I have voided the close and relisted. Details and rationale for listing in AFD1. Spartaz Humbug! 16:22, 19 December 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 00:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quf[edit]

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

Fails criteria for musicians and ensembles. No reliable and independent source founded. Farhikht (talk) 16:18, 19 December 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 a red face, but I really did do the search! Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven-dots glyph[edit]

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

With all due respect to the article's creator, I can't find any sources using this as a descriptive category (or in fact in any other way), so this is WP:OR. I searched using various permutations. Dougweller (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can. It was dead easy. They were cited in the article. The book by Jeremy Black and Anthony Green cited in the References section of this article has an entry for "seven dots" on page 162. Uncle G (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And now when I search for "seven dots" I find that and a couple of other entries. I despair. Mind you, it worked the other way for me this morning, someone said a certain search only showed up maybe hundred entries, I did the exact same search and found about 700. I'll withdraw this. 19:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Courcelles 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evert–Mandlikova rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 15:15, 19 December 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. Courcelles 00:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hingis – V. Williams rivalry[edit]

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Don't see how this article fits any of the categories under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e., mere collections of external links or Internet directories, mere collections of internal links, mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording, or mere collections of photographs or media files. Article needs expansion, but basis for deletion of an article on a seemingly notable rivalry has not been established. Rlendog (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you've noted it yourself - "seemingly notable" - but not verifiably notable? What makes this, in its current format, verifiably notable? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - What does "current format" have to do with notability? Rlendog (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It means when I wrote that comment there was no evidence of verifiable notability. I think that's pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 15:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence of verifiable notability here, other than people's personal opinions on whether this is notable. And as an aside, the title should be changed from "V. Williams" to "Venus Williams" in any case. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you looked very hard. I was able to add two references in just a few minutes. But you have to actually search, not just glance at the existing article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. But it's not my job to go searching for this kind of thing. The article was woeful. Now it's not quite so. I applaud your ability to find the time to find the relevant references. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, your right it isn't your job to do the searching and I was surprised myself at finding them so readily. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall there are other "rivalry" pages up for deletion like this. If you could do the same for those, so much the better. I have to admit to have judged each page on its on "merit" (which generally speaking meant no merit at all). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news archive search shows results on the first try.
The Washington Times: Hingis, V. Williams forging a great rivalry
$2.95 - Washington Times - NewsBank - May 13, 1998
It's early in the year but not too early to declare that Martina Hingis and Venus Williams are :going to own women's tennis. Everyone else is a subplot at ...

A major news paper has an article about this "great rivalry". Remember, most Wikipedia articles were created before they started asking for references to be in them. So its best to do a quick Google news search BEFORE you try to delete something. Dream Focus 20:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but this article is less than a year old, and we asked for references way before that. But good advice, nevertheless!!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong spill the beans 23:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#STATS. Top-rated professional tennis athletes will end up playing each other. Often. This is not uncommon. They play a lot of tennis matches. While the sources added to the article do indeed include the word "rivalry", I don't feel that there is evidence of a relationship between these two athletes beyond that of any normal relationship between two top-rated athletes who regularly compete against one another. There isn't an article to be written here. You could add a few sentences about how Hingis made a comment about how Williams isn't good enough, and Williams responded diplomatically. The sources wouldn't allow for much more than a few statements to be added to the article. If this article were accurately titled, it would be List of results of Hingis - V. Williams tennis matches. SnottyWong spill the beans 23:04, 21 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KF Tirana's top scorers in Albanian Superliga[edit]

KF Tirana's top scorers in Albanian Superliga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pure listcruft. Unreferenced article and seemingly no way of verifying most of the stats given. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:08, 19 December 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. Courcelles 00:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Indigenous Studies[edit]

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

At first sight this article looks pretty solid. However, this does not stand up to closer scrutiny. Most of the article describes other journals, gives exhaustive descriptions of the contents of the six issues that were published, or describes the cover design and subscription fees. Note that very few of that kind of information would normally be present in an article describing a scholarly journal. There are an impressive 20 references. However, references 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are to the journal itself. Reference 1 is a directory that just lists the journal and publisher. References 2 and 4 are indexes that do not give any real information at all, except that these libraries hold (some of) the journal. Reference 3 is to a page on the GDI, listing the year that the journal started publishing. Reference 5 is about a completely different journal. Reference 6 is a list of journals with similar topics, not even mentioning this journal. Reference 9 is only a passing listing containing Littlejohn (editor since 1991), without mentioning the journal. References 15 to 19 are instances where other publications cited an article from this journal. Reference 20 sources an award that the journal got: honorable mention as "best new journal". Note that this is only a mention, another journal won the ward and there are 2 other honorable mentions listed for 1992. A Google search for "Journal of Indigenous Studies" gives 227 hits, none of which appear to establish notability. Searching on Google Scholar gives 155 hits, not all of them articles in this journal. The most-cited article scores 24, the next one 12. Google books guives 171 results. Again, as far as I can see, none of them serve to establish notability. I cannot find any citations to this journal in the Web of Science (using "cited reference search, as appropriate for a non-indexed journal). WorldCat cannot find any academic libraries in the United States or Canada that hold this journal.

I originally prodded this article, but was chastised on my talk page for not having done my homework, hence this overly-long nomination. However, I think that the above shows that this journal does not meet WP:GNG or even the much more lenient criteria of WP:NJournals. Hence: delete. Crusio (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This article nomination amounts to nothing more that WP:POINT. The nominator originally tagged a stub as not being notable. Rosie spent time indicating that although 700+ google book hits did not reflect the actual solid sources there were enough sources to justify an article. This article is well sourced and does have several sturdy sources and is more than acceptable. We have articles on one off comics etc, I don't see why a journal with 6 issues which is mentioned in multiple publication should not meet guidelines. It is as notable as Karla Jessen Williamson, an editor who wrote for the journal. I agree that google does not exactly reap a massive amount of sources, but we have thousands of topics on here in which the web coverage is very poor and actual information which exists in book or in local libraries amounts to many times more. I think the article is informative and notable being part of Aboriginal Multimedia Society of Alberta which I think should be covered on wikipedia and the sources whether weak or strong have been used to write an article which is satisfactory. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Not that it is germane to this discussion, but how could this be WP:POINT? I prodded the article, because I felt it was not notable. Above, I provide arguments why I think that the added references fail to establish notability, so I have not been swayed and as is customary in this kind of cases, I take it to AfD. On my talk page you accused me of frivolously prodding articles and not being able to admit my errors. Now you accuse me of being pointy. I'd appreciate it if you could assume good faith. Thanks --Crusio (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I just think your time would be better spent expanding the journal stubs or poorly written/sourced articles which have serious issues than trying to delete this that's all. We have far too many article topics with seirous issues to contend with on wikipedia than a Journal of Indigenous Studies. At least though you have tried to state your case, some people are happy to prod anything and try to delete anything without proper research... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Half of the issues were written in Cree language. It may be the only academic journal, or one of very few, that can make this claim. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is distinctive and notable as a pioneering journal of its type. I acknowledge the criticisms by Crusio--we very rarely disagree on the standards for topics of this sort. I think this is a valid exception. There is a place for IAR, and this is the place--the academic journal informal guidelines we use did not take account of situations like this, so we must use our own judgment. I am not going to repeat Dr Blofield's arguments, but I refer to them for a explanation of the importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—I acknowledge the point the nominator is making. However, the frequency with which papers in this journal are referenced by other, reasonably solid publications lends it some credence as a notable journal.—RJH (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate the comments made by the previous two editors and I hate to disagree with DGG... However, I have to note that I don't see how this journal is "pioneering" or how that makes it notable (remember "notable" does not equal "worthy") and that the number of citations to its articles is far below what one might expect from a notable academic journal. I think everybody here should realize that if we accept these arguments and standards, then each and every peer-reviewed academic journal will be notable, too, even if it only ever published a single issue and was cited only occasionally. I have no real problem with that (apart from the fact that every obscure new online journal will then clamor its own article), but I do think it would violate the letter and spirit of WP:GNG and that many other editors would object to this change in policy (one only needs to peruse the discussion on the talk page of WP:NJournals. --Crusio (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I consider deleting an article I evaluate the content and sources and think to myself "would wikipedia be better off for getting rid of this or keeping it". The answer in this case at least to me is obvious. We have hundreds of unsourced articles and stubs on journals on here. It just seems odd to be wanting to delete a developed article like this that's all which does provide information and is well written. Even you must admit that at least some of the sources are satisfactory. I honestly can't see why the existence of this article is harming or worsening wikipedia in anyway. As it stands it is far better written and comprehensive and resourceful than over 3/4 of existing wikipedia articles on journals and I think its the sort of indigenous studies article that some people studying the Cree people or whatever would find useful. It may not be the most notable publication in the history of mankind but it is far from being the least. The sources which exists for many Inuit settlements in northern Canada is often extremely sparse. That doesn't automatically make them non notable. There is often considerable overlap between what is worthy and what is notable. As it stands this journal is cited by multiple publications and certainly has encyclopedic worth which only adds to wikipedia as a comprehensive source. The internet coverage of Cree journals is not exactly going to have an abundance of Harvard style publications about it anyway. The same would be for notable Burmese publications, even Welsh language historical publications I know of but the current sources available on the internet are very poor. I know you'll argue that I'm wrong until you're blue in the face but our time would be better spent deleting/expand those journals which really do have more seirous issues. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, easily meets WP:NJ #1 and #3, it is one of a handful of journals to focus mostly on the modern Canadian aspect of things, and one of the only academic journals, if not the only journal, to ever have been written in Cree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:39, 21 December 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 00:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick the Flying Brick[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason for the proposed deletion was, and remains: Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Has been a candidate in a number of elections but doesn't seem to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources".

PROD was removed with the edit summary, "Not needed for deletion because he is standing for by-election Oldham East and Saddleworth which will attract attention to the page and it has lots of required information on the page." That this individual is a candidate in another Parliamentary election doesn't seem to change the problems regarding WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN and I therefore remain of the opinion the article should be deleted. Adambro (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Adambro (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet our notability standard WP:POLITICIAN and no other claims of notability are made. Cullen328 (talk) 16:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the end of the day he is just one of the many protest politicans and not worthy of being included in this encyclopedia.--80.59.64.33 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never received more than 472 votes, never got as much as one percent of the vote in any election-- just a clever name on the ballot for a no less cleverly named party (Monster Raving Loony Party). I'm sure he had a clever platform and clever campaign slogans, but the point of the article seems to be that he was more never than clever. Mandsford 18:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being a candidate in an election is not sufficient evidence of notability. No other claim of notability is made in the article. Warofdreams talk 09:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-notable politician, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Redirect and merge with the Official Monster Raving Loony Party page. At least untill after he wins Oldham East and Saddleworth 86.29.69.238 (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing here to merge not already in other articles. Can we snowball yet? Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I do not think there is much worth merging to the Official Monster Raving Loony Party page, which is a long one for a party whose greatest success once was to beat the continuing Social Democrat Party in votes, leading to the latter's dissolution. OMRLP is mainly notable for putting up joke candidates at elections. If kept, the article should be moved to the person's true name (retaining the resultant redirect). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:25, 24 December 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 Knanaya. /merge. Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madhuram Veppu[edit]

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

This article appears to be WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Knanaya. As a community specific ritual it is not significant enough to deserve a seperate article.--Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Knanaya--Sodabottle (talk) 06:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I cannot tell from the article whehter the target of Knanaya is appropriate. That article says this Christian community is divided between Catholic and Jacobite denominations. This one says that it only applies to the Catholic one. Several sections of Knanaya are tagged as needing attention. An inappropriate merge will make the matter worse. Accordingly Keep for now, with a view to merger when other issues have been resolved. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Knanaya - Its appropriate...No need to keep a separate article for this, no further expansion is noted..--...Captain......Tälk tö me... 17:03, 24 December 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 00:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gladius DB[edit]

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

Unremarkable free software. Unreferenced article created by the developer (so major COI there). No indication or assertion of notability. Given that Wikipedia is not a directory of free software I see no reason to keep this article. Simple Bob (talk) 12:23, 19 December 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. Courcelles 00:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tristeza[edit]

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

This article is an A7 band page, since there is no indication of importance and no sources provided that show any interviews or significant coverage of the band. Cannot nominate for A7 because somehow the article survived AfD before. So renominating. — Timneu22 · talk 12:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Improve through standard editing. A standard Google search doesn't show much because the name is also the English name of a citrus disease and is also a common word in Spanish and Portugese. Limiting the Google search to articles also containing either "band" or "music", excluding "citrus" and limiting to English works well. There is an abundance of sources showing notability. Many are behind pay walls but even the first paragraphs shown make it clear this band has received broad and deep coverage from reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 16:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If sources actually existed, I'd think they'd be in the article by now. — Timneu22 · talk 16:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As we both know, Wikipedia is a work in progress. I am editing on a smart phone right now, and it is not practical for me to cut, paste and properly format references into the article at this time. I explained the Google parameters I used. The solution in this case is to reference and improve the article, not delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article is more than three years old. Still looks like A7. — Timneu22 · talk 17:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've added a "critical reception" section with quotes from two reviews and a description of one of the guitarists, all from reliable sources. If this was truly an A7, it would be taken care of by an administrator, and be over with. Instead we are having a seven day AfD debate, and an opportunity for interested editors to improve the encyclopedia by adding to and improving this article, rather than deleting it. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes WP:MUSIC. Releases on Better Looking Records, Gravity Records, etc., and plenty of media coverage. Also Restore all albums as they were illegitimately deleted via CSD A7 - Spine and Sensory, Dream Signals in Full Circles, Mania Phase, Mixed Signals, Espuma, A Colores, En Nuestro Desafio, and Paisajes. Chubbles (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Albums cannot be deleted as A7. I don't think what you're saying is correct. — Timneu22 · talk 14:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chubbles. If the band article is kept, I'll put the content of the album articles in your userspace so you can add more info/references before you move them back into mainspace. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per there being enough sources for the band to pass WP:BAND, plus I added a reference to their Billboard Magazine bio. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability claimed and (now) confirmed by multiple reliable sources. Thincat (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are sufficient sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - due to sources found and added by others. Also, restore the albums if they were deleted inappropriately or fraudulently. If someone thinks the albums should be deleted they should use the correct process. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The album articles were just track listings, hence the offer to userfy and allow the creator to add a bit more info - stop them getting deleted again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. Sufficient sources to establish notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:46, 24 December 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. Courcelles 00:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Doubt of Future Foes[edit]

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

Article is about an old poem, and consits of the poem itself, and then a paragraph about the life of Elizabeth I. The paragraph doesn't mention the poem at all, and there isnt really an article here. I've got no objections about moving the poem to WikiSource though. Acather96 (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With some improvements (LOTS of clean-up, wikification), this article could become meaningful. It does not appear to be a candidate for deletion in its own right. Slayer (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It needs a bit of work, but the poem does seem to be indeed by Elizabeth I, and the paragraph does seem to me to explain the circumstances. It's far more what Wikipedia is about than is an article about some 12 year old rapper who has self-recorded a mixtape (and sold three copies of it), or some two men, one girl and a dog company that has written a program that does what about ten others have done for the last six years. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I rearranged the article slightly. It is clearly an attempt to write about the poem, although it needs some more direct references and explanation. The poem itself is already on Wikisource. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That looks better - but wasn't there a link to Regnans in excelsis before? Peridon (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jonathon Oldenbuck. More refs would be nice, obviously. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:32, 22 December 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 00:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaheen Magazine[edit]

Shaheen Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Brady (Irish Footballer)[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Reason in original prod nom was: "fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORTS /WP:GNG - youth player who has not played first team professional football and who does not meet other notability criteria. Recreate if/ when he does." Nancy talk 09:13, 19 December 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 SNOW delete. No reason for this to stick around. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hell- the Bible's viewpoint.[edit]

Hell- the Bible's viewpoint. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is clearly original research, an opinion piece, is not written from a neutral point of view. Clearly it does not belong here, but there is no suitable category for speedy deletion. Speedy Delete. I42 (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. We need a category for this kind of stuff. Feezo (Talk) 08:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No we do not. Experience teaches that this is not the sort of thing that can be reliably decided by one pair of eyes. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And yes, we need a speedy for this and a few other items.--Dmol (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. jheiv talk contribs 08:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to hell with it. Yakushima (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it WP:SNOWing in Hell yet? Clarityfiend (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They have a place for this sort of article. Its called a forum.Slayer (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Pure unadulterated soapbox WP:SOAPBOX. I don't know if this sort of stuff is supposed to convert the heathen or frighten the converted into toeing the line - it would never convert me... (Please don't mention snow - I've been shovelling it for two days...) Peridon (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS - how about one pair of eyes and an admin afterwards? That's how most of CSD works... Peridon (talk) 18:45, 19 December 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 substantial support among established commenters that this word has now reached encyclopedic notability. The name "Santorum" will be redirected to the Senator, as I think consensus and common sense demand. There is widespread support for Santorum (neologism) as a renaming, but neologisms don't belong in Wikipedia: the result of this debate thus compels a different title. Santorum (sexual slang) is adopted as the most popular option consistent with WP:NOT. The question of how, exactly, to disambig. (a delicate matter, considering the Senator is deserving of personal respect, per BLP), I will leave to talk page discussion. Xoloz 15:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santorum[edit]

The neologism referred to, created by Savage Love, does not have any evidence of real currency as a neologism. It should be treated as a political act by Savage Love, and described under that article. Giving it a separate article implies that it is a generally accepted neologism. Mike Christie 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note there have been prior AfD's; see Revision as of 03:21, 23 Oct 2003 (immediately prior to first deletion) and Revision as of 00:04, 28 Nov 2003 (immediately prior to second deletion). The current talk page also has a lot of relevant discussion; this is apparently because the talk page was not moved when the current article was created after moving the prior Santorum page (though I can't swear that's the sequence of events).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Christie (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Change to Keep and rename, per various notes below. I agree it's notable; my complaint is really about the listing as a neologism when I don't see any usage evidence, only notability evidence. I also agree it probably deserves its own article now, rather than just a section in Savage Love. Per Kaustuv Chaudhuri, I think Santorum should go to the senator, and I also agree that the article should discuss the impact or political action; the coinage and its meaning should be given but not treated as being in current usage. (With reference to a couple of suppositions below, my objections to this are all about currency, not politics.) I'm also not sure what to call the article -- I suppose "Santorum (neologism)" is the best idea, though I'd really like to see something that doesn't imply the usage is widespread. Barring a better wording I'm happy with "Santorum (neologism)". Mike Christie 00:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Santorum (sexual slang) might be a more fitting home for it--do some Google sweeping for it, you'll see it's already creeping up all over the place as a reference. rootology (T) 00:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is absolutely no reason to delete this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Santorummm (talk • contribs) 03:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails notability for neologisms. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 03:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while I would not be averse to a redirect to Savage Love, it should be noted that Santorum meets WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." The American Dialect Society selected it as most outrageous word in 2004.[28]. Recommend a redirect of Santorum to Rick Santorum with a dablink from Santorum (disambiguation) to Santorum (neologism) or Santorum (terminology), i.e., this article. Note also that the AfD banner has been repeatedly removed out of process. I have reinserted it, but it may disappear again. No vote. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Prior to the creation of the current article, Santorum was a disambiguation page (now at Santorum (disambiguation). User:Santorummm appears convinced that the slang term is far and away the primary usage of the word, but I strongly feel that Santorum should be a disambiguation page, as it was before. Powers 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Whatever the case, Santorum should not be the disambiguation page, but should be redirected to Rick Santorum. There is no way in hell the neologism is more notable than the senator. Also recommend that the def in Santorum (disambiguation) be severely toned down. In its present form it's an attack. I also recommend that the Santorum (neologism) article (that should not have been prematurely created and redirected to Santorum as that's the wrong direction) should describe the impact of this coinage, rather than the coinage itself. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Santorum (neologism) per Kaustuv Chaudhuri Msalt 06:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kaustuv Chaudhuri. The American Dialect Society gives it currency.Agne 09:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: with regard to the ADS citation, I contacted Jesse Sheidlower, who is a member of the ADS and was at the meeting at which the word was nominated. (Jesse is Editor-at-Large for the Oxford English Dictionary.) I'd like to introduce his comments into this debate, not as a final authority, but as informative. If they are relevant but regarded as needing verification I'll see what I can do about making them verifiable. Anyway, he said that the ADF listing "should not be cited as proof of currency", and went on to say with regard to selection for those categories that "the only criterion is that someone nominates it. Many of the words we select, esp. for categories such as 'most outrageous', are stunt words with no real currency. The nomination or election of a word in one of the ADS words-of-the-year categories has nothing to do with whether the word is truly current." Finally, I asked him if he personally thought the word had currency, and he said "I don't think it has any real currency". Personally I think the nomination supports the notability of the political act but does not support the currency of the term. Mike Christie 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, but move to a proper disambig. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Adequately covered in Savage Love#Santorum. Powers 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as [[Santorum (neologism}]]. RedRollerskate 14:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, term has become widespread, possible politically-motivated nomination. BoojiBoy 15:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (italicized comments from the WP:NEO talk page) In my opinion, an article about the political act is verifiable if there are news citations. The word 'santorum' is clearly an integral part of that act, and its usage and meaning within the context of the political action is verifiable from the news sources [so within context it is a verifiable neologism]. However, it would not be OK to go around adding santorum as a technical term within articles on, say, anal sex (although again mentioning it within the context of the political act would be ok). Regarding whether it should be merged, an article for a political act by a notable person is distinct from other articles concerning the person, and I think that Santorum has a life separate from its genesis in Savage Love. The article, however, should focus on the act, and not just on a dicdef or it is inappropriate for WP. At this point it has some historical information, etc. and therefore I think it can stay. -- cmh 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am neutral on the best name for this article. Although I voted keep I would also support Santorum being a dab page with a link to an appropriate name for the page in question. -- cmh 21:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rename to Santorum (neologism). Santorum should lead to the disambiguation page or to the Senator's article. A couple more good sources wouldn't hurt the article, I think it's on the edge of WP:NEO. Ryanminier 16:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — As someone who used wikipedia to find out what the heck Santorum meant when I came across it maybe a month or so this page would have been ideal. A google search for santorum fecal yeilds 23,700 results. Certainly notable enough. - Glen 18:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Name should remain. The word has grabbed hold in the culture. It is clear why people want it to go away, but this is nothing more than knee-jerk linguistic stuffiness born from the idea that language stands still. "Santorum" has meaning, is generally used, and should remain at wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.253.139.93 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/rename to the neologism version and add to the disambiguation page. "Santorum" as a name should not go right to the senator either. rootology (T) 00:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Additional news sources citing the Santorum in question, proving it's notability: [29], [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1678249/posts], [30], [31], [32] rootology (T) 00:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Also, while I am admittedly a big fan of both Dan Savage and The Stranger, he is its editor in chief, and thus has a pretty big sway over what it publishes. Using it for a source of the term's prevalance should be taken with a healthy grain of salt. -- stubblyhead | T/c 05:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, people wishing information on the Senator should not be required to type in his full name in order to escape the full details of a (richly deserved but) very non-neutral attack on the Senator.
Second, there is still no evidence of any significant use simply to refer to the frothy mix. I'll believe we need a separate article on the word when I see it in lower-case in my drugstore on the package of a personal-care product (e.g. "Also works on santorum stains!" )
Santorum-the-neologism is inseparable from Savage, and its description belongs in Savage Love. It is as others have said, a notable political act, but not yet notable as a real word. It is simply not in the same class as "derrick" or "boycott" or "Web 2.0." The word is used only to provide an opportunity for explaining it (thereby delivering the attack).
The well-thought out previous compromise was for Santorum to be a disambiguation page which was carefully calculated to serve a) those seeking information on Rick Santorum—some of whom, strange as it seems, might well be admirers of the Senator and justifiably offended at being directed to the neologism; b) those seeking information on the neologism. The wording of the dab page was carefully chosen so as to make the general nature of the attack clear, without actually subjecting readers explicitly to the attack itself until and unless they followed the link.
I don't understand how anyone can fail to see the violation of neutrality involved in using the Santorum article to further Savage's political agenda. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and per Dpbsmith, and the definition box right up there in front seems irregular, almost as though it was being advocated as truth.....(cough WP:V cough)Homestarmy 15:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, widespread use (maybe not in context, but more along the lines of "Did you hear what they named after him?"). However, should be moved, and this should be a dab page. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 15:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as dismbiguation page. The concept may be inseparable from Savage, but many users will search on it without using his name, just as many users will search on Senator Santorum by last name only. A tactfully-worded disambiguation is the best answer. The Savage-related link could be to a section within the Dan Savage page rather than to a separate article if that's preferred.DanB DanD 19:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: That's exactly how it was before User:Santorummm got involved. A tactfully-worded disambiguation at Santorum with links to the Senator's article and to Savage Love#Santorum. Powers T 23:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% that a reader curious about santorum-the-frothy-mix shouldn't need to know that it was coined by Dan Savage or that it appeared in Savage Love. However, we don't know what a user who types in "santorum" as a Go word is looking for. If a user searching for information on the Senator... particularly one of the Senator's supporters... types in "Santorum" as the "go" word, he or she should not be subjected to material which he or she might find offensive... should not, if you like, be subjected to symbolically being soiled with santorum! The obvious solution is for Santorum to be, as before, a disambiguation page which a) makes clear that "santorum" is a sexually explicit neologism, b) makes it easy for the reader who wants to know what it means to find out, and c) also makes it easy for the reader who does not want to know what it means to remain ignorant of its meaning. It's not Wikipedia's job to force awareness of Savage's opinion on anyone. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a separate issue from having an article on the frothy-mix meaning. Your standard (which I agree with) would be met if Santorum were a dab page, referring people to Rick Santorum and to Santorum (neologism) without saying exactly what the neologism meant. Your standard would also be met if Santorum redirected to Rick Santorum, and the latter had a note at the top along the lines of, "For the use of Rick Santorum's last name as sexual slang, see Santorum (neologism)." I'd be satisfied with either of those alternatives, but I think the latter is preferable, because most of those typing in "Santorum" will want the Senator's article. JamesMLane t c 15:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these are perfectly fine with me. I tend to agree with your judgement that Santorum-redirects-to-Rick Santorum-and-Rick Santorum-dablinks-to-the-neologism almost certainly gives more users what they seek in fewer clicks. It's tricky, though, because someone who types in the full term Rick Santorum probably is not looking for the neologism. On the one hand, it doesn't seem right to have Santorum be a dab page that seemingly gives equal weight to both disambiguations; on the other hand, it seems a little inappropriate to put a frothy mixture of you-know-what right at the top of the Rick Santorum article.
There are currently four items listed on Santorum (disambiguation); your second suggestion does not address what to do with the other two items. (In other words, the hatnote should link to the disambiguation page, rather than directly to the slang article.) Powers T 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The other terms don't really belong on the dab page, because they are not commonly abbreviated to "Santorum," but I've always thought they added value to the page—someone typing in Santorum might well want an overview of all articles with Santorum-related content. And, quite frankly, I've thought they served a useful purpose in diluting the santorum, so to speak; the dab page is 75% devoted to material about the Senator and only 25% to the notable attack on the Senator. Just my $0.02. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are the users who are editing at Rick Santorum in on this debate? Surely they will have an opinion about the dab setup? This conversation has gotten much wider than just simple deletion of a page and once this AFD has closed there will not be an obvious venue to continue the debate. I will add something to their talk page. -- cmh 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notified the Dan Savage folks as well in the spirit of fairness of recruiting people to an AfD. -- cmh 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same note added to Savage Love, where this originated, and where the term is also mentioned. rootology (T) 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into Rick Santorum Ashibaka tock 22:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: if you mean merge the article on the sexual slang into Rick Santorum, then this is an invalid vote. Read WP:BLP#Opinions of critics, opponents, and detractors: "Criticism should be [...] about the subject of the article specifically." The sexual slang is not about the senator specifically. Alternatively, if it isn't a criticism of the senator, then it does not belong in his article. WP:BLP is a much bigger deal than any minor benefit to merging these articles, and might invite accusations of libel. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 06:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not change name. Surely Senator Rick Santorum is not now and will not ever be the only "Santorum," so redirecting Santorum to the article on the good Senator seems unreasonable, and is likely to prevent readers from accessing information on santorum, since anyone entering simply "Santorum" as a search term is unlikely to be looking for the Senator. There is absolutely no doubt that this term deserves its own article and is notable enough to warrant one. Exploding Boy 04:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may wish to vote in the straw poll (see below); it seems the consensus is going to be to keep the article, but the question of what should direct where and how the disambigs should link has several answers, which is what the straw poll is trying to ask about. Mike Christie (talk) 10:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not change name. A Google search reveals the neologism to be the first result on Google. At this point, lots of people have heard "santorum" in a slang context only, without knowing who the Senator is. Only Pennsylvanians and politically attentive Americans know who Senator Santorum is, but people around the world know "santorum" as sexual slang. — Coelacan | talk 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: In order for this search to work, Google SafeSearch filtering has to be turned off for your computer. This can be done by changing your Google preferences. The above search link has been altered by adding "&safe=off" to include a temporary off-switch for SafeSearch. — Coelacan | talk 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's relevant that Dan Savage asked his readers to Googlebomb the term, and deliberately move it up to the top of the list. Here's the article where he does so. As a result, I don't think we can deduce anything from which is first on a Google search. Mike Christie (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That the first result is an effect of Googlebombing is certainly relevant. I disagree that we can't deduce anything from it, however. We can deduce something very simple: more people have linked "Santorum" to the "frothy mix" than to the Senator's home page. That's actually saying quite a lot, considering all the political websites (neutral and pro-) that must be linking to the Senator's page, and all the mainstream media sites that link to the Senator when they cover him, etc. There are so astoundingly many links to the Senator's home page as to have made it the number 2 result out of "about 4,580,000" yet all those links have been outvoted, plain and simple. — Coelacan | talk 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ninth Google result is also "the frothy mix," at Urban Dictionary, which was not part of the Googlebombing but certainly reflects currency. — Coelacan | talk 23:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Defining Santorum thusly, as it is used on the street, is no different than using the term "Comstockery" which is now used in everyday parlance. In this instance, the name of a conservative prude had taken on negative connotations because of his condemnation of certain acts. It is no different, and I'm certain the Comstock family has long survived the realities of the polysemous nature of discourse. And I'm a Santorum supporter.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.253.139.93 (talk • contribs) .
    • As I mentioned here, we don't have an article on Comstockery either. This is not a term in common use on the street, except as a laugh and snicker. Or, if you claim it is, perhaps you have some reliable sources? Powers T 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "comstockery" was a term that had its currency sometime, I dunno, between World War I and II. I don't believe I've ever heard it spoken aloud... but then the last time I think I heard the name Anthony Comstock spoken aloud was in the mid-1960s when I attended a performance? lecture? recitation? by Ogden Nash, when he recited the poem about how "Senator Smoot / Republican, UT / Is planning a ban on smut." Dpbsmith (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Santorum (neologism). Santorum should become disambiguation. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The neologism is more popular than the senator and should take precedence. Throw 08:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by "more popular" you mean "better-liked", you could be right. I think the senator is clearly more notable, though; Google shows 3,520,000 hits for "Rick Santorum" -fecal, and 30,700 for "Rick Santorum" +fecal. Mike Christie (talk) 10:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, no, not better liked by any means. I mean more popular in the sense that santorum the excrement is more noteworthy than the senator. Since we're using Google, "santorum" the excrement is the first thing listed and the senator is the second. That's what I mean more popular. It has nothing to do with personal feelings. Throw 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because Google Web hits are easily manipulated, I'm going to try the same test on Google Groups (i.e. USENET) which theoretically is easily manipulated too, but people rarely bother, and Google Books, which is quite hard to manipulate (but due to the time it takes to write and publish books has a time lag). I don't know yet how these tests will come out. If santorum sensu Savage exceeds the Senator on Usenet, and has at least a respectable showing in Google Books, then I'll agree that the neologism has taken hold. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, for starters, I can't replicate Coelacan's results. Using the same link he cited, I get Senator Rick Santorum's senate website as the top hit... and Wikipedia's article as the third... and I don't quickly spot Santorum in Savage's sense anywhere in the first fifty or so entries. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, I didn't realize this earlier, but Google SafeSearch filtering has to be turned off for your computer. This can be done by changing your Google preferences, or you can use this link which has been altered by adding "&safe=off" to include a temporary off-switch for SafeSearch. — Coelacan | talk 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I may not know exactly what to look for, but in Google Groups a search on Santorum appears to be overwhelmingly references to the Senator, not the substance. This is very significant to my way of thinking because many of the references to the Senator are very negative, so this is a venue where you'd expect to see the Savage neologism if, in fact, it were really current. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In Google Books, santorum -fecal yields Books 1 - 100 with 5210 page. santorum fecal yields "Your search - santorum fecal - did not match any documents." "dan savage" yields Books 1 - 94 with 94 pages on "dan savage," which is a very respectable number of hits for Books and confirms that Dan Savage is notable, not that I ever doubted it. "dan savage" santorum yields a single hit, and the page in question is a 2003 quote from Savage criticizing Santorum which appeared in the New York Times, but has nothing to do with the neologism.
        • At this point I am utterly unconvinced that the neologism has gotten real currency, and I have no idea what people were talking about when they said Savage's neologism was getting more Google hits than the Senator, unless it was a short-lived successful Google manipulation. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. In the long view, the word will outlive the Senator. As a second option, Santorum should go to a dab page. SchmuckyTheCat 17:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per dpbsmith. No evidence of widespread usage. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete covered in two other places even though it has no widepsread usage--Tbeatty 07:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some fashion - Has reached the fuzzy threshold of what I consider a generally accepted neologism. Cyde Weys 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's in wide usage (not sure how anyone is saying its not, just google). rootology (T) 20:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The overwhelming majority of Google hits are along the lines of "Hey, here's a neat word Dan Savage made up to make fun of Rick Santorum" rather than usages of the word in its intended context ("Man, I had to clean up a bunch of santorum before I could get to sleep last night"). I'm not sure if the former category really qualifies to indicate something is "in wide usage". Powers T 22:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

→ straw poll (moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Santorum#Straw poll as AfD is not the place for it. The straw poll asks about the preferred name for the article about the sexual slang term, and about where the link Santorum should go, and what the contents of the disambig page should be.)

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) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slave Doll[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006, this article has no sources to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 05:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kowaremono: Fragile Hearts Heaven 1 is apparently a collection set of Kowaremono (AKA Slave Doll) and Kowaremono II. —Farix (t | c) 02:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge Kowaremono II into the Slave Doll article. I see a total of four reviews for the franchise by Mania.com [33], [34], [35], [36] (two for the first anime and two for the sequel), as well as a short review by Anime News Network [37]. I think that reviews by two sources are sufficient to keep the article, especially considering that the Mania.com reviews are by 3 different people. Also, the one reviewer with two reviews did those reviews several years apart and changed his opinion significantly between them, which both shows a continued interest in the title and provides more content that could be used in the article (often Mania.com will run essentially the same review again when the same person reviews the same thing again after several years, but in this case while there is a good bit of content reused, his opinion on the anime is totally different). Calathan (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gets coverage. Dream Focus 11:58, 22 December 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 deletion. WWGB (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quarter Mile magazine[edit]

Quarter Mile magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya release history[edit]

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

The release history of this particular piece of software fails WP:N as a distinct topic. It does not appear to be worthy of a stand alone list, either. Novaseminary (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Keep' Wikipedia is the best place for gathering this type of historical information. The list can be enhanced over time with more sources and more details about each releases. See similar article 3ds Max release history A few press releases are already being used to nail down the dates. Request for deletion should only be used as a last resort for articles.lucericr (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lucericr, your edit history indicates that you have almost exlcusively edited pages related to this software and its related divisions and company. Be that as it may, how does the article meet WP:N? Any why is WP the best place for gathering this type of information? Isn't a significant purpose of the main article about this software to discuss how the software developed into its current form? As for the 3ds Max release history you point to, that other stuff exists is not sufficient reason to keep this. And, contrary to helping make your point, that article is another example of unsourced cruft. Novaseminary (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 3DSMax article example is meant to show an example of where each release is much more detailed than a simple statement of version and date and where a separate article is interesting. This "Maya Release History" list was delete out of the main Maya article less than 8 days ago (12th of December 2010), I suggest first giving the community more time to improve this article, and suggests ways to improve it. Right now, it hasn't had time to get other editor's attention. If in a few months it is still just as spartan, for sure its necessity be reconsidered, I completely understand your point. Note that is very easy to source release history with press release, has it has been done here of a few of them. lucericr (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But the subject of the article either meets N now or it doesn't (WP:V is less of an issue). If it is not notable (for Wikipedia purposes, not any other purposes) is should be deleted. The question isn't even whether it is useful or not, but whether it meets the criteria for inclusion (WP:DP). It can always be recreated if it does become notable. This sort of development history can go on the company's website and would warrant a reference cite, possibly, in the main article. It doesn't warrant its own article. And it is not a stand-alone list of wikilinks to various articles on WP, because none of the individual versions has an article because they would not meet WP:N apart from the main article either (unlike Microsoft Windows which does have separate articles for different versions, Windows 7, Windows 3.1, etc.). Novaseminary (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It's good stuff in many respects, and might perhaps be incorporated into the Autodesk Maya parent article, but our yardstick for notability is that other people have deemed the subject notable enough to discuss in depth (rather than just recite a list). Do any reliable sources do this for the history of which Maya product was released on which date? I doubt it. bobrayner (talk) 14:03, 21 December 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 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aathi Thamilar Peravai[edit]

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

Hardly any significant third party coverage [38] (many web results and all Google books results are wiki-mirrors), casting serious doubts on notability. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - A nonnotable organisation with marginal presence in one district of one state in India.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:58, 20 December 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 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Smith (chef)[edit]

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

Non-notable chef and proprietor of a commercial cooking school. The article has been purged of fawning adspeak since its creation, but still contains no indication at all that he has received significant coverage or would otherwise have a claim to notability, nor can I find any.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:18, 19 December 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 00:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Dehkhoda[edit]

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

Definitely an autobiography about an individual who has accomplishments but falls short of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for an individual. 3D modelling work in the 90s might qualify for WP:BLP1E, but the sources given (in the form of scans of copyrighted material) don't pass WP:GNG, and searches on Google News and Google Books don't back up a claim for notability; nor do the credits and other information posted on IMDb. tedder (talk) 04:57, 19 December 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. A9; Artist'sarticle has been deleted. Courcelles 00:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Reality[edit]

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

Non notable album from non notable singer. (Singer's article listed for deletion also). Article states that the album did not chart on any major charts. PROD removed by creator but no evidence of notability added. Dmol (talk) 04:37, 19 December 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 00:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth J. Miller, Jr.[edit]

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

Cleaning out the campaign cruft. Person got 1.5% of the vote in the 2010 Republican primary for governor, see California gubernatorial election, 2010. Not otherwise notable. Herostratus (talk) 04:22, 19 December 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 00:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Hughes[edit]

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

Person got 1% of the vote in the 2010 Republican primary for governor, see California gubernatorial election, 2010. No other notability. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 19 December 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) 12:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C0c0n[edit]

C0c0n (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of significant coverage or other indicia of notability that I can find for this conference.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Comment:updating the informations.(talk) 17:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting people won't get you anywhere. What we need to satisfy wikipedia's notability guidelines is indepth coverage in newspapers, TV, magazines etc. At present there is small 3 para "it happened" coverage in The Hindu that meets the criteria and it is not enough for wikipedia standards. Find coverage in other reliable sources (not coverage in minor websites, blogs and the organisation's own website) and the article will be kept. --Sodabottle (talk) 18:32, 21 December 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 00:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mantra (browser)[edit]

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

Non-notable browser software (not to be confused with other software called Mantra (e.g. 1).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Reach Out to the Truth 04:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Looks like a unofficial, niche distribution of Firefox that bundles many notable add-ons including Firebug and Greasemonkey. These add-ons are widely used in the web development and application security communities, and one can find many articles about using them. However, notability is not inherited, and I can find no reliable independent source on Mantra, so the article should be deleted now. (If the browser gains popularity, causing such reliable sources to appear, we have the option to create an article then.) PleaseStand (talk) 05:42, 19 December 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. Noone has really refuted the argument that this is a dicdef and the policy on that is clear. The premis that sources about the suibject rather then those that mention it has also not been refuted Spartaz Humbug! 16:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never wrestle with a pig[edit]

Never wrestle with a pig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:DICDEF entry, which is constructed out of some bare mentions of the phrase and is basically redundant to wiktionary:wrestle with a pig. I soft redirected it, but the article creator reverted so here I am.

It's a great phrase, in use as far as I can find in a slightly different form since at least 1946, but I don't think this concept has been discussed sufficiently in reliable sources to warrant an encyclopedia article being written on it. There's also some use of improper synthesis in the writing, by including the Lincoln quote.

We do have a related redirect, Pointless argument, which goes to Eristic. Fences&Windows 00:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep More than a DICDEF (I'm tired of seeing that used as a feeble excuse to delete stuff), as it also includes some history of its early use and popularisation. We do phrases (examples abound) and where a phrase has some history associated with it, rather than a single quotable utterance, it belongs here more than it belongs on Wikiquote. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a feeble excuse, it's policy. We're not a dictionary. If you don't want it wheeled out in deletion nominations, then make sure that articles on words or phrases are written using sources that actually discuss them. We can have articles about words and phrases, but they need to be proper articles and not just pseudoarticles constructed out of bare uses of words or phrases (what User:Uncle G calls cargo cult article writing). Have any sources discussed this phrase? If so, present them. I searched for sources (following WP:BEFORE like the good little non-deletionist that I am) and I couldn't find any to use to expand the article, though I did expand the Wiktionary (not Wikiquote) entry with some early quotes in lieu of that. Fences&Windows 02:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with the disclaimer that I am an inclusionist). Andy makes good points above, not that it wouldn't be nice to destub this article. Do we have any notability criteria for sayings/proverbs and such? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 03:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this is no mere dicdef. —Angr (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh really? All I see are some mere mentions, i.e. a dicdef. No discussion, no analysis, simply mentions. Have some respect for what we're doing here, have some rigour. Blindly voting keep because you see some cites is not enough. Fences&Windows 03:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes really. Your statement "All I see are some mere mentions, i.e. a dicdef" is a non sequitur, showing that you don't know what a dicdef is. Blindly nominating something for deletion because you don't know the difference between a dicdef and a stubby encyclopedia article is hardly having "some respect for what we're doing here". —Angr (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not a dictionary definition, but it is currently an explication and proposed etymology. On the third hand, the citations suggest some notability for the phrase, and deletion is not for clean-up. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't patronise me. I don't want it cleaned up, I'm beyond that - I tried it, I searched for sources, I concluded that they don't exist. It is not notable, you have shown no significant discussion of this phrase. Vaguewaves are not sufficient arguments. Fences&Windows 03:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's why my comment is not a !vote. The page is an explication, thus not far removed from a definition, which makes me hesitate to recommend keeping. But it cites multiple (albeit primary) sources, which makes me hesitate to delete on the basis of notability. Cnilep (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems to me like a valid, encyclopedic article on an English proverb, except I question it's notability. œ™ 12:02, 24 December 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Softpedia[edit]

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

Has no independent third-party reliable sources, and I couldn't find any by myself. There is no way we can write an article on this organization without sources. The only indicator for notability is Alexa's rating, which is a violation of WP:GOOGLEHITS.

WP:GNG requires sources that talk about Softpedia itself, and I couldn't find any:

  • in google books stuff like "download this software in (Softpedia's URL) or "Name of article, news.softpedia.com/article"[39].
  • in Google News, articles published in Softpedia's own website, or stuff like "Softpedia reported" [40].
    Enric Naval (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't come up with the same can-be-sourced-arguments again. Hasn't been since 2007, won't be done, and if Enric can't find anything, it probably means it can't be done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oddball one. But whatever we decide won't involve the use of the "delete" button. Sure, it's not notable so it can't have its own article, but a top 500 website is a plausible search term so it can't be a redlink. Therefore the answer probably ought to involve a redirect or merge somewhere, but I'm blessed if I can think where, at the moment.—S Marshall T/C 15:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but cut out all the unsourced fluff. LWG I done wrong? Let me know! 18:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- —innotata 21:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources means no dice, especially since it's been about 3 years with no sources.— Dædαlus+ Contribs 05:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't care but there are sources to draw on eg these news sources and thes books. This news item discusses the distribution of a particular malware, listing Softpedia as one of the sites distributing it. Clearly the quality of these sources isn't the best, but they just as clearly do exist. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I commented in my nomination, these sources are not about softpedia, they give zero information about softpedia itself, and many times they simply point to resources hosted in softpedia. Now, if someone could point to specific sources that dealt with Softpedia itself.... --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep- typical overzealous wikipedia delete everything in sight. Its a real, valid site which is fairly prominent on the internet. Ranks very high in google searches.--90.217.99.8 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it is mentioned in the mainstream business newspapers in Romania (like Ziarul Financiar): [41] [42] [43], describing what kind of enterprise it its, when it was esablished, where its income comes from, it's income in year 2009, etc. —  Ark25  (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added those sources. Still sort of unconvinced, but, meh. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 03:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete In case that my saying can count.
Sorry, I am not sure if I am allowed to post here. Here are a few sources but I'm not certain if they are according with Wikipedia requirements? They show that some software distributed through softpedia (and others) have malware.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20006502-245.html
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/security-threats/2010/06/02/free-mac-apps-cause-high-risk-spyware-installation-40089100/
http://www.zdnet.com/news/free-apps-install-spyware-on-macs/429788
http://www.macworld.com/article/151667/2010/06/mac_shareware_spyware.html
http://www.liquida.com/page/7350162/
http://www.liquida.com/page/7309357/
KeepInternetSafe&Clean (talk) 04:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that a website contains malware is not a relevant delete argument. NotARealWord (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: KeepInternetSafe&Clean has been blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. LFaraone 17:57, 20 December 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 00:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Iroume Ndjama[edit]

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

He played only on 4th league level. Oleola (talk) 03:15, 19 December 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. Courcelles 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 4, 1981, West Bend tornado[edit]

April 4, 1981, West Bend tornado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page goes against the NO NEWS policy because it was a onetime event and not a tornado outbrak. Tons of small towns get tornadoes what makes this one special? BabyFace98 (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well the aftermath section for one, and the 3 fatalities. Lots of coverage (considering this is from 1981 - compare that to if it happened in 2010). Lugnuts (talk) 09:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This tornado was one of the strongest in history. The article is well research. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the creator of this page, it deserves to be kept. This is an anticyclonic tornado for starters, probably the strongest one in recorded history but no through research has been done into anticyclonic tornadoes. This tornado revealed flaws in the National Weather Service warning system, as well as local response to disasters. In addition it killed 3 people and injured many more, I'd call it an overlooked, but notable topic. -Marcusmax(speak) 17:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of independent reliable sources on a noteworthy subject. Royalbroil 03:25, 21 December 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 Gavin Trippe. Spartaz Humbug! 16:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Single[edit]

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

Super Single was an idea (a very cool one, to be sure) for a new motorcycle racing class somebody had three years ago. It got two prominent blog posts [44][45] and then went nowhere. The article violates WP:CRYSTAL and WP:GNG. Note that the name for the proposed class has changed from Super Single to Formula 450 Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Dbratland (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Supermono as a historical note to the existing article? — Brianhe (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem there is that there is no actual connection between the European race class which exists and the non-existent proposed US class. The only place I can think of where a mention actually makes sense is on Gavin Trippe[46], which has not yet been written. I doubt anybody writing an article about Mr. Trippe would fail to mention his current project. --Dbratland (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Created Gavin Trippe, merged useful text into it. — Brianhe (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance if I don't get to it. I have far more new ideas for projects than I have time for. --Dbratland (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've done some expansion on Gavin Trippe and the F450 section has been fleshed out. As you can see, the name Super Single was dropped and the proposed Formula 450 series never quite got completely of the ground. The USGPRU was interested but didn't do much after 2009. The AMA liked the concept, but went and created a wholly different event, using purpose-built, single-manufacturer bikes not owned by the riders, rather than Trippe's idea of privateer club racers converting motocrossers themselves. Who knows what will happen next? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and therefore I don't think redirecting Super Single (or Formula 450 or F-450 to Gavin Trippe makes very much sense. I still think we should delete and if something develops in the future, we can adjust as appropriate.--Dbratland (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this action, copying this article's content elsewhere, Dbratland has fatally undermined xyr own deletion nomination. The project's copyright licences now require that this edit history be kept. If you want some content and its an edit history deleted, you cannot use that content and its edit history, Dbratland. Delete and don't use, or use and keep. Pick either having your cake or eating it. You cannot have both. Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? I can't tell if you're joking or not. First, the diff you linked to was done by Brianhe (talk · contribs), not me. Second, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia says right in the second sentence, "In these cases, supplementary attribution must be provided by either a link back to the source page, if available, or a list of authors." Keeping the original page is not the only means of providing attribution. And third, none of the copied text was kept in Gavin Trippe after a day or two of editing, except for a fair use quote from another source which is not attributed to the Wikipedian editor anyway. And I don't own this deletion nomination: I'm just as interested in the best possible outcome as each of the other participants, and have nothing at stake in having the page deleted.--Dbratland (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(And the writer needing attribution for the four sentences in question? None other than Brianhe. ) --Dbratland (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whew, I hope I didn't complicate things. I was trying to follow standard article merge procedures and templates to save the important facts from Super Single in anticipation of its demise. BTW I support merge/redirect to Gavin Trippe, obviously. Brianhe (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gavin Trippe. As this is basically the idea of a notable person that has so far just stayed an idea, that's the best place for the information, which is where it's been merged already. No harm in keeping a redirect, that avoids any arguments over preserving edit histories, and should anyone want to use "Super Single" for another article, we can sort that out as and when we need to. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:50, 26 December 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 iPad. Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPad 2[edit]

IPad 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL --Mepolypse (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I knew this article wouldn't go long without being AFD'ed. iPad went to AFD three times and I'm sure this one will live to see many more AFDs. Your definition of chrystalballing is incorrect. Articles on future events are not chrystalballing as long as they don't have original research not published by reliable sources. Marcus Qwertyus 01:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'll just note that the article contained large amounts of OR at the time I nominated it, which has since largely been removed. --Mepolypse (talk) 02:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per WP:GNG. There is definitely enough press coverage to be notable. Guoguo12--Talk--  02:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iPad while there may be press coverage, the original sources are generally obscure Chinese trade publications (in this case Economic News Daily, who are they?) and are basically WP:CRYSTALBALLing. We aren't MacRumors. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've linked to this deletion discussion from Talk:iPad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iPad. The article can be created anew if and when the product debuts. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iPad and protect page. As someone experienced with cleaning up Apple-related CRYSTALs, this is the only way. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with iPad Although it is notable and has sources, as is required by WP:CRYSTAL, it isn't confirmed by Apple for one thing, and we don't really have very much info for a whole article. I think we should put this speculation in the regular iPad article instead, and then restart the iPad 2 article again when the new version is released. --Thekmc (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iPad I've already tried doing this twice, only for it to be immediately reverted. Jgera5 (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because something hasn't occurred yet doesn't mean its automatic crystal balling. Many online sources are chattering about iPad 2. After the second generation iPad is officially announced by Apple, this article will be needed. —Terrence and Phillip 17:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The iPhone had only a single article for several generations of the product. Depending on what the iPad 2 offers it may be decided to stick with a single page and the issue hasn't been discussed at all on the iPad talk page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to it than "it hasn't occurred yet". It is a corporate secret. No official information has been given from Apple, and no even remotely reliable data (i.e. leaked prototypes) has surfaced from non-Apple sources. There's no even enough information for WikiLeaks, much less Wikipedia. Just because "many sources" talk about something does not mean the sources are reliable, or have reliable data. The topic, at present, is inherently unverifiable. After announcement, the topic becomes verifiable. The article, as Eraserhead points out, may still be unnecessary. HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge into iPad. HereToHelp nailed it: the topic, at present, is inherently unverifiable. We don't provide encyclopedic coverage of speculation because you must conduct original research to evaluate the so-called secondary sources. That's why WP:CRYSTALBALL. A future-event article that handles this well is United States presidential election, 2012#Prospective_candidates. It has no speculation on BO, but a paragraph about his eligibility and incumbent candidates. Speculation on Alvin Greene in normally reliable sources merits just a bullet point with his name, title, and state. Speculation doesn't get encyclopedic coverage, even if it's printed in what are normally reliable sources. In the case of iPad 2, the HuffPo citation is reliable secondary coverage of a reliable primary source. That's a good fact to place in a section at iPad. --Pnm (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iPad Article can be recreated when or if it's necessary, but for now it's crystal ball territory. Steven Walling 07:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to iPad - As the iProduct hasn't been formally announced by Apple, the article falls under WP:SPECULATION. ~NerdyScienceDude 14:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge to iPad - As has been said before, Apple's product naming may not be as expected (see iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS etc...) and the article is almost entirely speculative. If and when the next iPad is released, a new article is unlikely to be needed. Wexcan  Talk  02:02, 27 December 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 Slave Doll. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kowaremono II[edit]

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

Unreferenced since 2006, this article has no sources or citations to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 01:45, 19 December 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 FN FAL. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armtech FAL SAS[edit]

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

To short an article, only one line. I have copy this one line and added it to the article FN FAL which is the main article on the subject. MFIreland • Talk 00:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted by Courcelles (talk · contribs): "G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page." NAC —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Tulip[edit]

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

Wikipeida is not for things you make up one day. It is also not a webhost. Article creator has identified herself as a 11 year old girl, so there is some possible WP:CHILD issues here as well. —Farix (t | c) 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Farix. No sources to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 01:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:GNG. It really doesn't have to be more complicated than that, but still, I'd like to see where the article creator identified her age. Guoguo12--Talk--  01:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • [49] Though I don't expect that to save live for very long as it will likely be oversighted in accordance with Wikipedia's child protection policies. —Farix (t | c) 02:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable topic as shown above.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:47, 19 December 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 00:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Rob Zombie[edit]

20th Century Masters – The Millennium Collection: The Best of Rob Zombie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no sources to establish the notably. The parent article 20th Century Masters has been recently deleted due to lack of sources. JJ98 (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The fact that the article about the series was deleted is irrelevant because that was a list article that needed to prove if the series was notable apart from the albums within it. This AfD here applies to an album that should stand or fall as an independent item of its own. With that being said, I'm undecided on this AfD. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:59, 20 December 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! 17:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Underground Press Syndicate members[edit]

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

List of organization members. Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:STAND. ttonyb (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A note at the end of this article basically admits that many of the publications listed are non-notable in that "membership in the UPS was open to almost any periodical that wanted to join", and most of them "were short-lived and many produced only one or two poorly circulated issues". If this article happens to survive the AfD process, I would at least request that all the street addresses and subscription prices be removed; there's no point in encouraging people to write for a subscription to a newspaper that went out of business almost 40 years ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it is interesting to browse through the names this is really just raw data, not an article. Borock (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve through normal editing. Approximately 50 of these publications are notable, and the entire list shows an overview of an important journalistic trend of 40 years ago. Remove street addresses from article keeping city and state/province, uncapitalize publication names except where in original, such as CREEM. This list is very useful for anyone researching the underground or alternative press movement. Cullen328 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no need that every entry on a notable list is in itself notable. Notable publications do not cease being notable when they cease publication. The notability of the journalistic trend this list helps document is indisputable. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But if membership in this press syndicate was not selective, it is likely that many of these publications would not even have been notable while they were active. Non-notable publications do not start being notable when they sign up to join a notable yet non-selective organization. Besides, I am not questioning the notability of the underground press as a journalistic trend, just the bare list of its members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no Wikipedia policy that says every entry on a list must in itself be notable. The selection criteria is that these publications chose to affiliate themselves with the UPS. Some are clearly far more notable than others, but that is true of almost every list on Wikipedia. However, (accurate count now) 48 of these publications/organizations are notable enough that they already have articles on Wikipedia. I have just looked at about 20 of these articles. In general, these articles are thorough and well referenced, though I am sure every one could be improved in some way. A large percentage feature an image of a cover of a typical edition. It may well be that several others on this list may be notable, but do not yet have articles written about them. I concede that some on the list may be completely non-notable, but this is not a problem. The list is useful and encyclopedic, and can serve as a resource for editors who want to research and write articles about "underground press" publications that do not yet have Wikipedia articles. Cullen328 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 19 December 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) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HDRpad[edit]

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

Notability, looks like spam. Darxus (talk) 00:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These last five requests are from the software list on High dynamic range imaging, which has a tendency to collect this sort of thing. They used to do external links, but now they're creating articles and linking them. —Darxus (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And some of those articles are really good ones. Perhaps you might consider improving them instead of AfD'ing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced software article; no indication of notability; article created by single-purpose account- likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. --Pnm (talk) 05:18, 27 December 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. Borderline G11, but no objection in a week. Courcelles 01:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EasyHDR Pro[edit]

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

Notability, looks like spam. Darxus (talk) 00:06, 19 December 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 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy James (performance artist)[edit]

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

Seems to not pass WP:N/GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Google returns a lot of selfpub and self-promo material, no substance. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cem Akaş[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, no third-party references in the article either. Tone 14:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 December 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 List of The Venture Bros. characters. Merging/redirct to a central kliost is long standing policy for these kinds of nn/merginally notable characters Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Samson[edit]

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

I doubt that this character would meet the notability. This character has no citations or sources, and it has no real world coverage. JJ98 (Talk) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article is one of many for the characters. If this is a delete, they all are. Maury Markowitz (talk) 02:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a List of Venture Brothers Characters (with Comment) The previous editor's comment is the question here, isn't it? While there's no question about the notability of The Venture Brothers, are the individual characters able to pass wikipidia's guidelines for fictional characters? The problem is that there's no strong set of guidelines for fictional characters that I'm aware of. Still, Notability itself is fairly cut and dried, that the subject must receive non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. This article in it's current form does not demonstrate that this is the case for this character (as distinct from the television show he's a character on). This is not an animation icon such as Charlie Brown (a character analyzed in dozens of books on his own, separate from Peanuts). This is one character on an ensemble half hour comedy. So given the lack of sourcing the most reasonable degree of coverage he should be given is as part of that ensemble. For reference, see the treatment of all of the characters of Arrested Development in the List of Arrested Development characters. I haven't looked at the other Venture Brothers character pages, but it seems likely that merging all of them into a list is likely the best course. -Markeer 03:16, 19 December 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) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Üçnoktabir[edit]

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

Unreferenced since Dec 2009. PROD removed without comment or improvement by IP 123.231.108.114 on 20 Dec 2010. Unremarkable defunct band. Fails WP:BAND. Kudpung (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. They were a notable and successful band. I have added references to the article. -Maviyengeç (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 December 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) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funk Metal[edit]

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

False genre entirely invented and single-sourced by Allmusic, a site I find completely useless in terms of music. Any of these bands can be classified as another legit genre, and the fact that they mention Red Hot Chili Peppers and metal in the same sentence just makes me burst out laughing.--F-22 RaptörAces High♠ 02:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the nominator: Please provide details and links regarding the arguments that this genre doesn't actually exist. NotARealWord (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve citations. andycjp (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you counter the nominator's argument that that's impossible, because there are no sources documenting this genre outside of Allmusic? Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Allmusic is a good site- they have a valid point- there are bands that do funk/metal, even if they don`t describe it as such. andycjp (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if those bands aren't described as funk metal, then we can't call them funk metal, here at Wikipedia, since that would be original research. Also, I think there needs to be sources other than all music, since notability requires coverage from multiple sources. NotARealWord (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep absolutist disregard for allmusic can be disregarded. - Steve3849talk 18:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples of use:

nytimes
[50][51] [52] [53]
boston.com
[54] [55] [56]
latimes.com
[57] [58] [59] [60] [61]
sfgate.com
[62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
village voice
[67] [68] [69] [70]
rollingstone.com
[71] [72] [73] [74] - Steve3849talk 22:14, 25 December 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) 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of people on stamps of Abkhazia[edit]

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

Its stamps are not recognized by the IPU and the ability for this list to have encyclopedic utility seems unlikely. jps (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this AfD should have been listed at the Philately Wikiproject from the beginning. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article is part of the series of lists within Category:Lists of people on stamps and non-membership of the UPU is not a good reason for deletion. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lack of any properly documented existence of the subject is, though, and as yet no-one has provided any such reliable documentation, whose authors can be identified and whose reputations for fact checking and intention of accuracy (rather than of selling joke stamps or stamps of dubious provenance for a profit) are good. Uncle G (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "person selling stamps priced in U.S. dollars" is in fact based in Moscow. However, the "stamps" of Abkhazia are not listed in Stanley Gibbons' catalogues as at the most recent edition of Part 10 that I have to hand (6th edition, 2008). Daveosaurus (talk) 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Moscow is not, last that I looked, in Abkhazia. Again my point is made for me. If, as the person selling the stamps in U.S. dollars would have you believe, these stamps have been in circulation since 1994, why is the Georgian government official some fifteen years later in 2009 treating this as a hypothetical situation? Indeed, if the stamp issues commenced in 1994, why is the article discussing rumours of stamp issue commencing in 2009? No-one apart from a few people with catalogues of stamps to (re-)sell, priced in U.S. dollars, appears to have documented any such thing as this at all. Uncle G (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the stamps in this list are probably bogus but there does appear to be a legitimate limited local service within Abkhazia and there is evidence of the use of Abkhazian stamps in conjunction with other stamps for international mail. See here. I added details to the Stamps of Georgia article and if the Abkhazians make enough progress in their struggle, they might even justify there own "Stamps of...." article in time. We don't restrict ourselves just to UPU recognised territories. Maidonian (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your source, that you're having the entire validity of an article on, is an image of unknown provenance on a web log? Uncle G (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not on its own, it is that plus the several articles referenced in the Stamps of Georgia article which combined make it clear that there is some sort of limited local postal service operating in the area. Maidonian (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you missed the point where the very New York Times source that you cited in that other article says what I said above, that there's nothing to indicate that this wasn't some entirely U.S.-based philatelic snake oil? How do you justify the existence of a "list of stamps of Abkhazia" article on the basis of sources which, like the NYT there, don't authoritatively state that these in fact are stamps of Abkhazia at all? Uncle G (talk) 03:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As already mentioned, most of the stamps are probably bogus as you say but there is a form of postal service so the list is legitimate if of limited use at present. The answer is to edit the list not delete it. Maidonian (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep according to Maidonian. --Michael Romanov (talk) 06:34, 22 December 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. Courcelles 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GovLoop[edit]

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

Article appears to be self-promotion/advertisement of a website. The references cited appear to promote other promotion articles rather than about any notoriety of the website.

The wikipedia references I used to determine if Speedy Deletion applies to the named article are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming

Attemtped to add this line: {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GovLoop}} to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_15&action=submit but wasn't able to do so. Have surmised that adding it (as instructed where the Submit button is, for this form) may require being an Administrator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernel.package (talk • contribs) 23:11, 15 November 2010

I just found this AFD un-logged so I logged it today, 12 December. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News search reveals that (in addition to press releases etc.) this company has received quite a bit of coverage in Reliable Sources. I added to the article two links from the Washington Post and one from the Minneapolis Star-Journal; there are others. --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 December 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 San Francisco Giants minor league players. Courcelles 00:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Williams[edit]

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

Not notable minor league baseball player. He is a .213 career hitter and doesn't seem to be getting any better. He is currently in the Giants system, so perhaps a merge? Alex (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 December 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 Seattle Mariners minor league players. Courcelles 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Wilson (outfielder)[edit]

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

Non-notable 27-year-old minor league baseball player who has never reached the major leagues. He's been around for nine years and has never made the majors. He is currently in the Mariners system, so a merge might be optimal. Alex (talk) 01:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. He had a decent 2010 in AAA and, given the Mariners' hitting woes, he could very well make a 2011 debut. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:52, 19 December 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. Courcelles 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Fair[edit]

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

Never reached big leagues, though he did collect 2200 hits and manage in the minors. Despite that, I'm not sure what makes him particularly notable. Alex (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though he never played in Major League Baseball, his minor league statistics, combined with the recognition given to him by the Carolina League indicate notability. I am sure that deeper research than google would indicate sources currently unavailable given his stature in that league.--TM 17:04, 24 December 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 00:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Andres Bolona[edit]

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

does not criteria for notability for a tennis player (no ATP World Tour main draw matches or Davis Cup matches played; not a top three world ranked junior or junior grand slam winner; not a ATP Challenger titlist) Mayumashu (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 December 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. Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing. Article is still unreferenced but MichaelQSchmidt has flagged it as "under construction" today (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stefanie Küster[edit]

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

Seems to Fail WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR as I cant Find adequate sources. Found as Part of Reference a BLP drive The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(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)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_December_19&oldid=1142642235"