Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 December 4

< 3 December	5 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

South Hampton Roads[edit]

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

Improper content fork from Hampton Roads. South Hampton Roads isn't a municipality, region, neighborhood, county, Metropolitan Statistical Area, or Census Designated Place: it's merely the southern part of Hampton Roads. There are no sources to demonstrate that this phrase is used by any official authority. GrapedApe (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to be widely used to describe a subset of the larger Hampton Roads area, such as in this reliable source. Dough 48 72 02:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - real designation for a real place. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upstate New York for precedent. How is it a POV fork? Bearian (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a source was provided by Dough4872 and per Bearian's reasoning. Also I have witnessed that long time consensus in Wikipedia has been inclusionist for much minor settlements. --RealRocky (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above Admrboltz (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Bible Chapel[edit]

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations - notability not established, no secondary references. Google search found only primary references. Previous deletion debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvest Bible Chapel had no consensus. Since then, no secondary references have been added. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is not notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems pretty clear-cut, actually. No notability, no secondary sources.ArchieOof (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. extransit (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal (Ke$ha song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS I tried redirect twice, but User:Nathantheawesomeguy keeps expanding it out, despite a talk page explanation. CTJF83 chat 23:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support: no mention of notability mentioned or given. Only two sources: the first of which is supposedly referring to a page of YouTube viewers' comments (really?) and the second seems to be a non-notable blog. Besides the point, the article also does not follow MoS like the rest of articles related to the artist. Yves (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Inappropriate creation, ive already written a proper article at Cannibal (Kesha song), this is a sneaky way around a redirect. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The song has not gained notice as a stand-alone entity. The reviews that are cited in this article are actually for the whole album and mention the song in passing. Therefore, the song can be mentioned in passing at the album article, and that's that. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:20, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Recreate if more sources comment on it, or if it charts. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:01, 9 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. extransit (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Beach Town Center[edit]

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

Non-notable building--nothing particularly notable or unique about this building. No third party references to establish notability, as required by WP:N. GrapedApe (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huge multi-block complex and basically the downtown of Virginia Beach, the largest city in Virginia. Despite what the nom states, there are plenty of third party references to establish notability.[1][2][3][4][5] and many more. --Oakshade (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per Oakshade. If any change should be made, probably the best solution is to rename the article into Virginia Beach Downtown? --RealRocky (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a massive local project involving several city blocks. In addition to what Oakshade has found, I see some nice sources in a Google books search[6]. There are enough sources to establish notability and write a decent article.--Kubigula (talk) 04:54, 10 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stregoni Benefici[edit]

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

Fanfiction, the only source given is a free web space provider. Ben Ben (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gbooks shows the term is used both in the Twlight series and in actual folklore, though not exactly in the same way. For example, a work on shamism in Eastern Europe says this was another way to refer to the benandanti. Much of the sources on the actual folklore are not in English. Edward321 (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment

Fiction (Twlight series) → Stregoni Benefici = Vampires
Italian Folklore → Stregoni (pl.) → Stregone/Strega (sin./noun) = Witchcraft/Witch.

This isn't the first sloppy research for names in fiction;> As another user had made a determining edit to the article maybe someone wants to develop it (plus Atria (Half vampire), which still misses any advice on fiction.)--Ben Ben (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this cannot be reliably sourced as a term used in the Twilight series (as opposed to the singular Stregone Benefico, which is apparently used therein as a byname of Carlisle Cullen), it should be deleted. If it can be so sourced, I think the best solution is to smerge the sourced content to Twilight (series), since it seems to refer only to the sense in which the term is supposedly used in that series and works dependent on it; add a sourced mention of the alternative name to the Benandanti article; and turn this (moving it to Stregoni benefici, which is currently a redirect to List of Twilight characters#Carlisle Cullen) into a dab page with links to both articles. I know that two-entry dab pages are usually frowned on; but since the relevant information would be only a detail in both the Twilight and the benandanti articles, hatnotes don't seem appropriate in this case. Deor (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced article on a topic that is not notable. Eudemis (talk) 18:23, 10 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 already G11'ed Jclemens-public (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charitably Loud[edit]

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

It is well written, but this concert-related article hasn't got any evidence of national or international recognition. Minima c (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 4 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 22:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JayVaughn Pinkston[edit]

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

Main author User:Pinkstonsa seems to be related to the topic, so WP:AUTO applies. Also, does not meet WP:ATHLETE. —bender235 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This dude may never even play a game of college ball. Rikster2 (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article provides numerous citations but none give even a whif of passing WP:GNG, so it falls to NSPORT, which it fails -Drdisque (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

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

The result was delete. No comments, no reason for keeping noted. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Ching-i[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Ath#College_athletes, no significant coverage for this university level athlete beyond reprinting of statistics. Gigs (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 November 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) 00:08, 28 November 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:00, 4 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NERFU College Men's Division III Rugby Tournament[edit]

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

Non-notable third-tier sport event Orange Mike | Talk 23:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 November 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) 00:07, 28 November 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:00, 4 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HeyMike![edit]

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

Non-notable band. Only very-slim claim to notability is that two members were once part of other barely-notable bands. No recognized record label, no charted songs. Looks like a local bar band, and that's about it. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This band meets the wikipedia Criteria.

1. Has released records on a record label of note, Takeover Records
Is signed overseas to a subsidiary of Sony in Japan, Catch All Records.

2. Has former members in other notable bands, including a platinum selling band, Yellowcard and former Tooth and Nail band, Craig' Brother. A member, Ben Harper has won a Moon Man at the MTV music awards.

3. Has articles in press from years ago on VH1, punknews.org, Kantine in Germany

4. They've been a world touring band and if you did your research, you would see that they have probably never even played in a bar.Foley227 (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5. The person, real kentucky hick who is calling for deletion has called Capitol Record's alum, plantinum record selling, charted #1 on TRL band Yellowcard, "barely notable." HE gives no reference to 90's Punk rock band Craig's Brother. It's obvious this person does not know the punk rock scene very well. Foley227 (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from disparaging other editors. Continuing to do so will endanger your privilege of editing at Wikipedia. No, I don't know the punk rock scene, and I don't care to. It is up to the author to provide references from reliable sources, which were not present in the article. If you will add references from reliable sources (see this page) that prove what you have asserted above, I will likely change my mind. But the job falls to you - I won't do your research for you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The artist profile on VH1 is a very reliable source and so is the article from punknews.org. VH1 has been a mainstay in the industry for more than 30 years and every notable punk rock band gets reviewed by punknews.org. I've also added international sources and the release date of HeyMike!'s full-length record from interpunk.com which is another huge source of punk rock info. These seem to be credible sources as described in wikipedia's rules on sources. I also don't want to use sources from I-tunes, rhapsody, napster etc.. because I'm not trying to sell the band's records. In other words, I've been selective in what types of sources I use.
Foley227 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

I have researched wikipedia's source rules, the 12 criteria needed for notability and keeping a neutral point of view. I've also researched what a deletionist and an inclusionist is, so that I can better understand other editors points of view.
Foley227 (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that my intention is not to disparage an editor personally. I only take issue with the arguments that are in direct conflict with my arguments and/or not true. I think that calling this band a bar band should require some evidence as wikipedia is not an opinion based website. I also think that calling anyone names is disparaging in it's own right. I think every argument should be backed up. The other comment, "real kentucky hick", which might described as a disparaging remark is what this editors name, "realkyhick" stands for as described by his talk page. I appreciate the work done by this editor to keep wikipedia academic; but I feel the hours I have spent researching the subject, following wiki guidelines; and using credible sources speaks volumes to not only my knowledge of the subject, but the knowledge that is easily available due to the notability of the band.
Foley227 (talk) 06:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this editor in anyway felt I was attacking him personally then I apologize as this was not my intention.

I just edited the sources so that it's in the format most people use on wikipedia. Every piece of information is credited to a credible source. I'll say this, you've got me working much harder than I ever thought I would when I started this the other night.Foley227 (talk) 07:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apology accepted. More explanation is on your own talk page. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:55, 21 November 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) 00:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have removed sections which were copied directly from their allmusic bio. Wikipedia does not accept copyright violations.
The VH1 source is a mirror of the allmusic bio, please check your sources.
I wouldn't call a label with such limited coverage and only 6 other blue linked artists a "more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)."
being signed to a label does not pass criteria.
A former member of a notable band it not the same as an independently notable musician.
Kantine in Germany looks like a supplied bio used for a gig announcement, not press and not independent.
Nothing wrong with playing in bars (even Metallica done it after they were huge). If anything I'd normally have less respect for bands that havn't played in bars.
As stated above the VH1 source is not a very reliable source.
What's the other international source?
Wheres the stuff from from interpunk.com? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE TO MORE QUESTIONS

The VH1 source may be a mirror but they are still in VH1 which 99.99% of bands aren't. Why is allmusic not a reliable source? Does VH1 just use mirrors of anything?
It's not about 6 blue listed artist, it's about what 6 blue listed artist the label signed and released. Takeover was founded in the 90's and has released music from:
Yellowcard(Also on Capitol Records)
Over it(Also on Virgin Records)
The Matches(Also on Epitaph Records)
Don't Look Down(Also on Nitro Records)
Inspection 12(Also on Honest Don's(Fat Wreck Chords))
And lots more...
That label still has releases out on all digital outlets and still puts out music. It is still around; although not as big as it used to be.
Ben Eric Harper(independently notable musician):

www.punknews.org/article/20269

www.mtv.com/bands/y/yellowcard/qa_feature_011706/

Google "Ben Harper Yellowcard" or "Ben Harper Amber Pacific"(another notable band Ben Harper played for. The article is about HeyMike! not Ben Harper.

I believe gig announcements from an outside source(not from the band) is a form press, I'm also not admitting that Kantine is simply a gig announcement.
No one said that playing a bar was bad, read a bio about the early years and you'll understand.
Does VH1 just mirror any band from any source? HeyMike! meets the standard of VH1 but not wikipedia?
HeyMike's release on the chaos label(Catch All Records) in Japan

http://www.indiesmusic.com/LabelView.aspx?id=3653

A wierd video of HeyMike's music music playing in a Tower Records store in japan:

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/63486403

This is a blog from what I gather is a partner of Catch All Records:

http://blog.catchall.jp/archives/1206130.html

I don't speak japanese and English isn't as big in Japan as it is in other countries. In other words, the japanese stuff can be very difficult to find.
I took out the Japanese source because it's unethical for me to use a source that I'm reading with google translate.
https://www.interpunk.com/item.cfm?Item=131301&, I had used it for the release date of the LP but I decided to go with something else.

Foley227 (talk) 06:23, 2 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 08:20, 5 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 Fairfield University Glee Club. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bensonians[edit]

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

No reliable sources to establish notability of a musical group. PROD removed by IP with no rationale. tedder (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 20 November 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) 00:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fairfield University Glee Club, and mention briefly there. That organization has achieved some more notability. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:38, 29 November 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as suggested. No notability in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 7 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! 17:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warped Tour 2010 Tour Compilation[edit]

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

Article which is not an article, it's just a track listing (with no sources at all) for the spinoff CD from an event. Notability is not asserted other than by inheritance. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before I give a "keep", I'm going to make an effort to find sources. I'm busy working right now, so don't have time to do a comprehensive search, but I'll add as I find: [7] [8] --IllaZilla (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - In addition to IllaZilla's sources, I found a couple more at: [9] and [10]. Except for AllMusic, the sources aren't much to get excited about but they might get us to an acceptable stub article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:21, 22 November 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) 00:46, 27 November 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on sources found by myself and Wizardman. As he says, they're not much to get excited about, but they're a start. They've been doing these compilations for ~13 years, so it's not surprising that they receive less and less coverage as the series goes on. But since I was able to find a couple just on a quick, first-sites-that-came-to-mind search, I imagine there are more out there. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:11, 4 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 Johnny Hates Jazz. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Hayes[edit]

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

Non-notable musician Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PEOPLE. Endofskull (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge to Johnny Hates Jazz. As a member of a very successful pop group (four top-20 singles, number one album), he's very obviously notable, but since his notability derives solely from membership of the group, the content should be merged there and this article redirected. Why on earth did this need to come to AFD?--Michig (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge to Johnny Hates Jazz. Obviously notable, but mostly because of the band, so since the article is short, it could be merged with that, per Michig. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 21:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Johnny Hates Jazz, as per standard practice when the only claim to notability is membership of a notable band. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rappelz[edit]

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

Available sources limited to press releases and unreliable websites (WP:RS), therefore does not appear to pass notability threshold for inclusion (WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is not noted in any newsworthy article I could find. --Sbluen (talk) 00:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was hopeful when running a reliable sources search, but all the results were trailers, press releases (self-published), or forums. --Teancum (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm sorry but how can you say unreliable sources if the sources mentioned are the actual multi-language multiple official sites? Any OTHER source would be unreliable, not these! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.24.69.235 (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Note The subject of the article is a well-known MMORPG with notable publishers in several different territories that has received significant coverage in various media. Can you list some sources you consider reliable on the topic of video games? 78.131.80.59 (talk) 08:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, there's a list at WP:VG/RS. Can you show us the significant coverage that you've found? Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a distinct lack of MMO-related web sites in the list, and in the checklist below it, nearly all MMO sites are marked as unreliable. When checking a couple of links provided as rationale for them being marked as such, it appears that nearly all of them have been deemed unreliable by you personally. You should understand that you cannot meaningfully apply the same standards of journalism here as you would expect from CNN or The Times. See WP:VNT. While I agree with your evaluation of these sites, we have to make do with them simply because there is no better alternative in the genre. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 12:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improve First of all I have to say that I appreciate your work very much. However there are a view remarks I want to make. As far as I can see the review was merely focused on the references, rather than the content of the article itself. I also have the impression that the review process itself has done not accurately enough. The deletion policy (Deletion policy) clearly states that you should prefer improving an article over deletion.

“If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.”

A comprehensive research for references is not only a quick search via google but also covers a wide variety of different sources ranging from printed papers up to audio, video, and multimedia materials. Just by recall the past I remember for example that the satellite television channel NBC Europe NBC Europe did have quite a lot of reportages and interviews about Rappelz in their program NBC GIGA Games [11]. Some of them are available to watch in you tube [12][13]. I am pretty sure it is possible to get those reportages from NBC archive. Also a search at their web page reveals several articles about Rappelz [14]. All of those would be suited to full fill the criteria of being a reliable source, as can be seen in the article "Identifying reliable sources" (WP:RS) under the topic of "News organizations" and the following. This could be a source of improving the general quality of the content whole article. In generally you should not expect to find a lot of reliable sources in the field of massively multiplayer online role-playing game since there is still a lack in science to cover up those. However as the growing numbers of publications, e.g. a search at science with the keywords “world of warcraft” [15] reveals, they are catching up fast. Another good resource for getting hard data and a reliable source for improving the quality of Rappelz would be a research in the field of economics, since here is the link between the virtual world and real world. However one should not fall in the trap to think those so called reliable source are the only existing truth existing.

So my suggestion is in a first step improve the reviewing process of the rappels article. I also suggest reviewing not only its sources but also its content. In a second step I suggest to improve the overall content of the article, rather then deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.171.192 (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Another reason for notability is that Rappelz was the first MMO to be localized for the Middle East/North African market. This fact alone has been covered by practically all MMO-related web sites and even some news sources outside the genre. 78.131.80.59 (talk) 10:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks, I think GIGA Games is fine as a source [16] as it is owned by Fox Interactive Media. I always make an effort to improve an article before nominating it. Two months ago I looked for sources and couldn't locate any, so tagged the article with notability concerns. It's a shame you didn't read the article during that period. I'll leave the nomination open, to allow others to judge if a single sources is sufficient. Marasmusine (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen this game in Top mmorpgs list by GameOgre. [17] -- deerstop. 13:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a few more in printed or online articles from european area:

Spieletipps

online article: Kilian Meier, 2010: Rappelz: Gratis-Rollenspiel mit starken Pets und Fähigkeiten, spieletipps.de [18]
printed article: is in Ausgabe 09/2008 [19]
company details: [20]

gamers.at

online article: Tanja Högel 2010: Rappelz, gamers.at, [21]
print article: Tanja Högel 2010: Rappelz, gamers.at, 25, page 80 ff. [22]
company details: [23]

pcaction.de

printed article: Alexander Wenzel, 2008: Rappelz: Revolution, PC Action 09/2008 [24]

onlinewelten.com

online article: Andre Bergmann, 2006: Rappelz Gratiswoche bei OnlineWelten Tag II, Onlinewelten [25]
company details: [26]

Computer Bild Spiele

online article: Test: Rappelz, 30.06.2009 [27]
online article: Rappelz: Ein abgespecktes World of Warcraft, 06.03.2009 [28]
online article: Rappelz: Tipps zum kostenlosen Online-Rollenspiel, 06.03.2009 [29]
those articles were also printed: Test: 12 kostenlose Onlinespiele, COMPUTER BILD Ausgabe 12/2009, pp. 86 [30]
Company: [31] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.173.224 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A add to the articles listed above, but now more scientific and not so much from the few point of the players, is found in the Google scholar search provided in the start. In the article Gyuhwan Oh and TaiYoung Ryu, Game Design on Item-selling Based Payment Model in Korean Online Games, DiGRA 2007, Rappelz is used on page 651, as an example for online games that provide their services free of charge. However the author made a typing error and the connection is only made if you follow up the references to number 17: "Rappelz". Available at http://www.rappelz.com/. The article over all covers quite well the business model used in Rappelz.

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise fraud[edit]

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

non encyclopedic essay, see WP:NOT WuhWuzDat 18:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Merge with franchise article. --Monterey Bay (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Franchise is a disambiguation page. Do you have a particular article on that page in mind as a merge target? bd2412 T 23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Unencyclopedic treatment of a clearly encyclopedic topic. bd2412 T 23:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to Pyramid scheme. The introduction states that "franchise fraud" is merely another name for "pyramid scheme". Location (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a good option also. bd2412 T 02:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep and fix. Franchise fraud isn't the same as a pyramid scheme; franchise fraud is a single franchiser taking business advantage of one novice franchisee at a time. One claimed example here. --CliffC (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it's not like Burger King corporate tricking an individual Burger King store owner out of their earnings. "Franchisee" here is specific to a kind of product salesman. bd2412 T 03:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Keep And fix. A "franchisee" is not a product salesman in the same sense as in a MLM or other pyramid. There are thousands more franchises than MLMs or pyramids and there are hundreds that we, in general, never hear of. Ive run across several over the years that were blatant rip-offs and have seen the damage they can cause. The article needs to be revamped and written a little better but it should not be merged into something it isnt. I personally would redo the opening quote since they are different from a pyramid, they are treated under the same laws as pyramids but have different problems. http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/news/coladvice/book/bk991029.htm is a good example of how a franchise scam can work and I believe Business week would meet WP:RS right? Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, integrate and fix. Substantially different from mere "pyramid schemes", especially from a legal angle. Wayne Hardman (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle G, thank you for cleaning up the "Further Reading" citations! DozenAttempts 16:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DozenAttempts (talk • contribs)

Alberta

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vita (rapper)[edit]

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

I was not able to find any sources that would verify that this musician meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am I the only one that thinks that the rap business resembles jazz in that everyone seems to appear on everyone else's records? As to this rapper, if the article is the best that can be said, then I'm afraid she doesn't meet our standards for having an article yet. In show biz, anything can happen, so when better can be said, try again. I will say that the article appears to be honest and not the usual puffery from someone who thinks that he (usually he...) is the best thing before, during and after Sliced Bread (you must know them - even though they split before their first single was written...) I do wish her luck - it's an overly male field of operation on the whole - and would point out that while rap is not my scene, I have rescued a rapper's article from deletion before now. Peridon (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I know who Vita is, but she actually doesn't pass any of the criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Erpert (let's talk about it) 18:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:RS. --Monterey Bay (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources to establish notability. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has had several charting singles including "Down 4 U" and "Lapdance" Live and Die 4 Hip Hop (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think doing a verse counts as it being your record. I could be wrong - I'm into rather heavier and/or weirder stuff meself. Peridon (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From the article: Her album "..." was never released, with the 1st single "..." not gaining attention.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Calvert Griffiths[edit]

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

Declined speedy, despite the assertion that as an attorney general in Hong Kong automatically establishes notability, the relevant criterion on WP:POLITICIAN is a secondary requirement. Passing mention in a couple of articles in google's news archives and books. No significant coverage that I could find, perhaps others will uncover that which I could not. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Being the chief legal officer of a territory of several million people has traditionally been considered grounds for notability. His tenure in high office is sufficiently far in the past that digitized online records may not be readily available, but that's a far cry from saying there aren't likely to be any - indeed, our secondary criteria exist explicitly because we believe it likely that secondary sources do exist. Ray^Talk 22:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes, I understand the reasoning behind the 2ndary criteria. I looked for sources and did not find any. That does not mean such do not exist, but this has been marked an unreferenced BLP from 2009, so there's been time to find sources. Some more time won't hurt, and I'll be happy if sources are found. But simply saying "we assume sources can be found because he's an X" become untenable at some point, no? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent about fifteen minutes searching academic databases for articles about this guy. All I found were a couple of articles quoting him briefly. Nothing on which to base a Wikipedia article. I don't really see a problem with keeping it as a stub on the off-hand chance someone is trying to find out what his official role once was, especially given that there is no list of Hong Kong Attorneys General to redirect to. But with these sources, this article will never be more than a one-sentence stub.--Chaser (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Some more sources exist if you search for "John Griffiths" (i.e., without the middle name). [32] [33] [34] But I think the preferable option is to Redirect to List of Hong Kong attorneys general, and create the latter article. THF (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in reliable books is found by this search. I would add that if we are to change the long-standing consensus that government ministers are notable we should do so in a much wider ranging discussion than a single AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, what Phil Bridger has found looks good enough, thanks! --Nuujinn (talk) 00:10, 7 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 23:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waddon Goods Park[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable Retail park. Google seems to return little or nothing related to the park. Perhaps signs its own death warrant by starting "Waddon Goods Park is a small out-of-town retail park..." Pit-yacker (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as per WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 20:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and run of the mill. →Gƒoley Four (GSV) 20:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pine Grove Bible Church[edit]

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

Does not meet inclusion criteria per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations. Single primary source and promotional. Google search reveals only trivial listings for this organization. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 12:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 13:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to remove the sections that had a promotional tone. The organization has been an active member of the Ottawa, Ontario, Canada community for over 60 years. Steamlunch (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of independant references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete no indepth coverage. just event listings. [35]. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 5 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) 13:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Stevenson (photographer)[edit]

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

Non-notable photographer. jonkerz ♠ 12:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to much like a self promotional article. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC) - user was blocked for being a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pure spam. No credible indication of notability. Working for, say, Campbells Soup doesn't make one notable of itself. Especially with no actual evidence of the work being anything special - or even done. Peridon (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part also is a copyvio from 2009 at http://www.phillycreativeguide.com/personality/creative_personality_20090401.aspx Peridon (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No real indication of notability. Like Peridon said, she isn't notable because simply because she worked for a certain company; she doesn't hold any awards or the like. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 21:08, 4 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 Daniel Cere. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dominus Vobiscum: Marriage and Family Retreat Centre[edit]

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

Does not meet inclusion criteria per Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations. Most references are not related to the specific organization, and/or do not support the statements (such as the film set reference) Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 12:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 13:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - editor who created this article also added an 'other uses' section to Dominus vobiscum. I added a comment to the talk page, then removed the new section. Editor added it back ~~without discussion.~~(editor joined discussion soon afterwards) Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 14:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake... 'other uses' section was not newly added to the Dominus vobiscum article. Eclipsed (talk) (code of ethics) 14:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct about the source for the film set; it does not mention the filming location. However, the organization has been given attention by a prominent Montreal newspaper, the Montreal Gazette. The newspaper is recognized across Canada. Is this an adequate source? Even if the organization does not deserve its own article, I think it is notable enough to be mentioned on the Dominus vobiscum page. What do you think? Thanks. Steamlunch (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The mentions in the Gazette both mention the Retreat only as part of a larger article listing a number of other retreats--that is, the coverage there does not meet the standard of "significant" coverage required in WP:GNG. The other two sources don't help, as one is not reliable (#3) and one doesn't mention the article subject (#4). Unless more sources can be found (a Google News search didn't turn up anything useful for me) that are reliable and cover the source significantly, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to (founder) Daniel Cere. The best source has only four short paragraphs about the center, and the others are almost worthless in terms of complying with WP:ORG. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 5 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. This should not be taken as a precedent against selective nomination of individual characters. Courcelles 13:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC) (Addendum: I was talking to a fellow admin the other day about mass XFD nominations where different levels or types of articles/categories/images are included, and how it tends to lead to either no discernible consensus to do anything, or a poor decision regarding at least some of the items. I think we're firmly in both camps here. I can sense at least some consensus that some of these articles are good candidates for merging, or maybe in extreme cases even deletion. Which ones? Unless the closing admin decides to make it up out of whole cloth, s/he is not going to be able to tell. Some, however, there is a fairly clear consensus towards keeping as separate articles. Anyone who is considering individual nominations of a character should read this discussion closely. Courcelles 14:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Mandy Hampton[edit]

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

The article fails to meet real world notability and is solely In-universe. The article fials to meet the critria of being Veifiiable and well sourced. This shows a lack of notability and as there is no notability the article is not warrented and must be deleted. The show also finished since 2006 and has lost its notability. Lucy-marie (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above and as they are all from the same T.V show and all fail to show lasting notability and do not warrent individual pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 13:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 13:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective keep - without doubt, some of these lack any sort of notability, and should just be folded up into Recurring characters from The West Wing or something. However, main characters such as Josiah Bartlet I think are quite notable in of themselves. For instance they've spawned cinema adverts, other TV shows - heck, around the time of the 08 presidential elections, BBC3 I think devoted a fair amount of time to a comparison of Santos/Vinick and Obama/McCain. So, in short, keep the main characters (Bartlet, Ziegler, Seaborn, Lyman, Cregg, McGarry, Santos; maybe Moss, Young, whoever the replacement Sam was), merge the rest. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be aware the article on the 2006 West Wing presidential election which was devoted mainly to the parallels with the 2008 US presidential election and cited the sources listed above was deleted some time ago as lacking in notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The West Wing presidential election, 1998 (2nd nomination) for the discussion relating to the deletion of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that that article should have been kept, I don't think it's that notable, but notability is relative. As a comment on say Josiah Bartlet it could be easily sourced, but there wouldn't be enough sources for an entire article. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of that information can easily be covered in the main West Wing article. Seperate articles for characters are not necessarry and the inidivdual characters all fail to meet the stadard required to warrent and article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator seems to be of the wrong impression that notability is lost over time. The cancelation of the show has no bearing on our ability to reliably reference or determine notability of the subject matter. The³5₉ (Talk) 04:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am saying that some of these articles the have been tagged since 2007 for verifiabliity and notability and the show finished in 2006 so there has been 4 and a half years to esatblish notability which has not been forthcoming.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective or procedural keep: there's just no realistic way for me to be able to check if these are notable or not. Seeing as it's an emmy award winning show with a lot of attention on the ensemble cast, some most certainly are notable... and some most certainly are not. It would be better to nominate a few at a time and deal with them on a case by case basis. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective keep - As Mattbuck said, although the existence of articles for all of these characters is a little ridiculous, some of these articles have shown enough real-world notability to merit being kept. I will agree with Lucy-marie that most of these articles currently contain little more than in-universe plot summary, but that does not mean that they inherently lack notability or verifiability and so, like Shooterwalker, I question the wisdom of nominating them all for deletion en masse. Just because they are not good articles right now does not mean they don't have room for improvement. (Josiah Bartlet and Sam Seaborn come to mind as two articles that have undergone dramatic improvement in terms of including out-of-universe information over the past few years.) I also completely disagree with Lucy-marie's claim that the notability has been "lost" because the show stopped airing in 2006. Notability is not temporary. I concur with Mattbuck's recommendation that we retain the articles for the Josiah Bartlet, Ziegler, Seaborn, Lyman, Cregg, McGarry, Santos, Moss, Young, and Bailey, and possibly also Abbey Bartlet, Vinick, Schott, Hampton, and Gardner (since they were all considered part of the main cast at one point or another, although they didn't appear in the main credits every single episode). --Hnsampat (talk) 20:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this route of selective keeps is gone down how are the retained articles chosen. For example there is no way Hampton or Schott should be kept but there could be an argument made, although I firmly believe in the deletion of all the articles, for Bartlett or McGarry or possibly Vinick. Characters who were periforary or only appeared in one or two seasons clearly do not. Wikipedia is not simply a repositroy for Characters from TV shows. I am almost certian that the characters including Bartlet, Vinick, etc can be covered in the main West Wing article and the list of character articles. A far better place for individual character articles is a dedicated Wiki on the topic.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with the idea of merging all of these character pages into the main The West Wing article, as that article is already way too long and one of the reasons for creating articles is so that one article doesn't become insanely long. There is enough real-world information in many of these articles to justify their being kept as separate articles. I strongly disagree with what I perceive Lucy-marie's current premise to be, namely that all of these articles are inherently unworthy of being kept as articles, possibly simply because they are articles about TV characters. Articles about TV characters are not inherently wrong, nor is a character "clearly" not worth of having an article simply because he/she only appeared in one or two seasons. That being said, Lucy-marie does have a fair point that we need to come up with some kind of objective criteria for which articles to keep and which ones to get rid of. I think that, for now, we should keep the articles for every character appearing in the main credits (Josiah Bartlet, Abbey Bartlet, Ziegler, Seaborn, Lyman, Cregg, McGarry, Santos, Moss, Young, Bailey, Schott, Vinick, Hampton, and Gardner) and delete the rest. Afterwards, we can attempt to develop the other articles to include more real-world information. If, at that time, they still fail to meet real-world notability, we can bring them back up for deletion. --Hnsampat (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of characters in The West Wing. That's what we have character list articles for: maybe NN individually, but critical plot element of notable work, but too much info for main article == character list time. Articles with individual RS coverage should be kept separate. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment Please be careful when making misrepresenative statements. I have said that the charcters can be covered in a list of charcters article and the main West Wing article. Not all in the main West Wing article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging the less important. A nomination that combines in a single list the most minor of the characters and the protagonist shows a total lack of understanding. And in fact the first named character here, though certainly minor, has an article with out-of-universe content about the production, just as an article about fiction ought to. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comments miss the point wholly and entirely as just because a work of fiction talks about the production does not make it notable fictional characters which are notable are characters such as the following Michael Tritter and Nadia Yassir. The Hampton article is in no way notable when held up to the standard which the Notability guidelines state. The Hampton article also one cites one source so the majority of the tiny article is unverified.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But, the question is that is the article inherently non-notable? You've pointed out a problem with the article(s) in question that needs to be fixed. This is not what an AfD is for. AfD is not for clean-up and remember that articles are not necessarily worthy of deletion just because they are poorly written or have not been improved in a long time. Articles should only be deleted if they are inherently and irredeemably non-notable. If you're saying that the Hampton article should be deleted, then you are saying that even if it becomes picture-perfect in the future, it should still not exist because it is inherently non-notable. Is that what you're saying? If so, please provide an argument for that. Thank you. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely believe none of these articles are inherently not notable but I am willing to be proved wrong. Hampton only appeared one season and the character didn’t even appear in all the episodes. There are no sources outside of the West Wing circle or west wing episodes on the character and the character has no real world impact such as the character being ground-breaking or being the first to break certain stereotypes. The character is not notable in the real world and should be deleted as this is not a repository for all TV characters.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cite the Michael Tritter and Nadia Yassir articles as being models for articles about TV characters. How are they notable in the real world? They were never ground-breaking nor the first to break certain stereotypes. I get that Wikipedia is not a repository for all TV characters and you don't need to keep making that argument; NOBODY is arguing that these articles should be included solely because they are about TV characters. Remember, we all agree that most of the above articles should be deleted/merged. The point of contention is with your claim that all of these articles should be deleted. I repeat my earlier point that just because the articles currently have no outside sources does not mean that they inherently lack outside sources. --Hnsampat (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

of course that an article includes the real world substance doesn't make it notable, but it avoids the NOT PLOT restriction that some people think applies to articles about specific elements of fiction & that the nomination specified as a problem. To nominate saying entirely in-universe when it is not entirely in-universe is rather misleading. (myself, I think it applies only to overall coverage of the work). I think everyone agrees that not all these characters are notable enough for a separate article. But can it be seriously argued that the protagonist of one of the most significant series of the last few years is not notable? That you give as the reason for the group nomination that they are all characters in the same show can only mean that you think all the characters in a show equally notable or important.

Further, your argument in the nomination " The show also finished since 2006 and has lost its notability" is totally false to the meaning of notability here. Once notable, always notable. By this principle we'd not be an encyclopedia , but a guide to current productions only. The point of being an encyclopedia is that we cover whatever was ever notable. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective keep. Not all the characters are as notable as others.--Karljoos (talk) 20:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective keep. Main characters which play an important role throughout the show should be described in seperate articles. I disagree that these articles are per se not notable, as The West Wing is one of the most notable TV series. There are not many shows which can look back at so many Emmys and Golden Globes, and the main characters should therefore be described at least in some detail. However I would object the idea to put all characters in a single article, because this article would to be very very long to cover the characters and their (for a TV series) rather complex connection to each other and the story line. To integrate them in the main article would be even more insane, because it is already to long im my opinion. And I can't follow the argument, that the show was finished in 2006 and therefore the articles are not notable anymore. Either they were notable and thus still are, or they were not notable and will never be. --93.196.6.219 (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please be creful when making comments on this deletion., as the IP address above has only mad eone edit and it is on this article, which may indicate it is not be an independent contributor.--12:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy-marie (talk • contribs)

And you touted two articles that you contributed to (Michael Tritter and Nadia Yassir) as examples of "model" articles! The fact that this user contributed to the article does not mean his/her comment should be discounted. In fact, I think it's a rather well-written comment. Besides, most of us here have at some point contributed to these West Wing articles; that's why we care enough to actually have a discussion about it here. --Hnsampat (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither was touted as a model article but as simple examples of articles which are notable. It should be noted when IP addrsses make substative comments when it is their first and only comment. I also do not see the point of the attack in the above comments on showing example articles which are notable.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that's exactly my point: why does it need to be noted when IP addresses make comments and it is their first and only comment? Why should those opinions be discounted? We don't discount your comments just because you have your own biases or my comments because of my biases. That was my point in bringing up your article examples. In any case, this is digressing from the main point of this discussion. --Hnsampat (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single edit IP addresses are common use for voting on issues, I am though not claiming that it is being undertaken here. Registered users who have a long history of edits have no chance of being accused of voting but single edit IP addresses are frequently used just for voting purposes. As has been said though these discussions are digressing from the original point of the topic at hand. --Lucy-marie (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under the same principle, I nominate the following articles for deletion. These fictional characters have no real-world notability and are solely in-universe; the works in which they appear were published long before 2006, so they must not be notable either.

I hope it is obvious to all that I am arguing in favor of keeping several of the West Wing-related articles in question, at least those for the core cast and the more interesting of the occasional characters. The West Wing won nine Emmys in its first season alone, won the Emmy for best drama series four years in a row, and won 27 Emmys total. With all due respect to the OP, if she thinks it's lost its notability in a mere four years, she hasn't done her homework. I recommend a more selective deletion discussion, listing only the truly non-notable articles. Tualha (Talk) 01:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm opposed to these mass-merge AFDs as a rule, let alone one with 49 (!) different article. It's completely inappropriate to lump them all together like this, and makes it very difficult to determine notability for all of them when presented in one shot like this. Some of these may very well be non-notable, but those should be nominated individually, rather than with articles that are clearly notable as fictional characters like Sam Seaborn, C. J. Cregg, Josiah Bartlet, etc. — Hun ter Ka hn 02:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being idealogically opposed is not a valid reason for opposing. These articles in some case have been tagged for years to be inmproved for verifiability and notability but nothing has ben done. If some articles can be bought up to a notable standard, then plaese do so but do not say these are notable without providing any sources to back up those claims.--95.147.55.234 (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are contrary to WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. For my other comments, see below. — Hun ter Ka hn 19:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am also opposed to mass-merge AfDs and this case is a particular example of its problems. You may have a reasonable case with Don Butler and Seth Gillette, and I'm not necessarily opposed to deleting minor characters who really have no notability anymore. But to lump those characters in with President Bartlet and Leo McGarry, for instance, makes no sense. There is no way to accurately and efficiently debate AfDs for so many different characters at once. I would have gone for "selective keep" but I really think the best way to stop these mass AfDs is to prevent them from achieving their purported purpose in any way. Overall, I think notability concerns must be raised by individual names and articles and thus I vote keep on this AfD. JasonCNJ (talk) 07:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I have said above some of these have been tagged for years and no sources or verifiability have been forthicoming, if you can proivde those then please do, but just saying they are notable when some of these have been tagged for years is just rediculous as there is no proof to back up your claims. --95.147.55.234 (talk) 10:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, some of these articles have been tagged for years. Some, not all. But by lumping them all together, it makes it nearly impossible for us to comb through 50 articles, separate out the ones that need sources and then find sources for them, all in the week that the AFD requires. It would have been much better for the nominator to either take them individually, or do a mass-merge AFD with only the non-notable noms, so we could identify the ones that actually need work. — Hun ter Ka hn 15:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, in response to your point about the lack of verifiable sources, I chose to focus on Mandy Hampton, as she seems to fit the description of the kind of articles you are talking about, and in any event she is the main nominee in this mass-merge AFD. I expanded the article with a great deal more information from verifiable sources, and did some restructuring to the article as well. These were just a few sources I was able to dig up after a brief look, and I know for a fact there are others out there. And this is one of the more minor characters who had only been around for one season. In my opinion, this shows that most of these articles can be expanded and improved with a minimal effort, which is yet another reason that I feel the mass-merge AFD is inappropriate. — Hun ter Ka hn 17:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're lumping in central characters for which a solid article could easily be supported with characters that only appeared in one or two episodes that could easily be merged into a list article. There's no way a blanket judgment should be passed on all of these articles. This isn't an AFD issue, this is a job for a bunch of editors to get shovels and start digging. Gamaliel (talk) 19:42, 10 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 12:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Curtiss[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP, ineligble for {{BLPPROD}}.

Author whose works themselves, Stories from elsewhere and Every Thing Counts (The Akashic Reader) (both published by Gallivant Multimedia) do not appear to have been widely reviewed, or attracted much in the way of comment or sales. pablo 12:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 12:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable author. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable author. Completely unreferenced. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:02, 6 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) 13:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Pym[edit]

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

Non-notable junior chess player. Winning national junior titles at under 13 and younger is entirely insufficient and appears to have done nothing at senior level which might establish notability. _wjemather ^bigissue 12:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an international, so doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. No good refs for general notability either. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 14:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SunCreator. SyG (talk) 11:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. The ECF grading according to the source is 175, this corresponds to an Elo rating of about 2050, well below the IM level where notability starts becoming a bit if-fy. The tournament achievements and junior titles are, as noted by the nominator, not of the type which confer notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 6 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review[edit]

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

Student-run journal that appears very irregularly. An email to an editor (Crazypaco) claims that the journal still exists, but the last issue listed on their own website dates from 2007. Regardless of this, the journal does not seem to be indexed anywhere. There is a claim that it was "recognized by The New York Times", but this is sourced to the journal's own website and it is otherwise unverifiable whether this is an in-depth coverage or just an in-passing mention. None of the other independent sources presented contribute more than in-passing mentions and fail to establish notability. Fails WP:Notability (academic journals) and WP:GNG, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Notability (academic journals)

I would like to point out to the moderator that upon AFD, no notifications were provided to current contributors (the original author being retired) per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and since the article was nominated over a major U.S. holiday, the AFD may have gone largely unnoticed. I am not suggesting any inappropriateness by the nominator, but request that in light of this, that this AfD be given ample time for additional discussion. CrazyPaco (talk) 11:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This journal is not circulated to many libraries (which I would expect would be its target subscriber base), nor has it received significant amounts of coverage in independent reliable sources. Perhaps in the future, it will be ascertained to be notable, but so far I don't see that as being the case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alas, I think it falls a little short of the notability threshold. One or two other independent sources which give PUR more than a passing mention would be enough to sway me, but I didn't find any with a brief google. bobrayner (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The immediate two delete comments above seem to suggest that the article could warrant a merge and redirect (perhaps to University of Pittsburgh Honors College) as opposed to an outright delete. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an irregularly published, somewhat unique and difficult to categorize journal, but it is operational and it is notable for various reasons, one being that it was the first the first peer-reviewed undergraduate academic journal in the country. As with the vast majority of peer-reviewed academic journals, they are the primary sources of documenting and distributing accumulated knowledge, but are not themselves typically the subject of coverage by secondary sources. Therefore, the Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) was created to help in this conundrum. It proposes that if a journal meets any one of the listed conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, it is notable.

This journal could be (1) "considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area" in that it is considered to be influential in its subject area (undergraduate research in the humanities) as depicted in other professional academic literature (see "The Independent Researcher: A Model that Works". CUR Quarterly. Reading, PA: Council on Undergraduate Research. 28: 1: 24. Fall 2007). In addition, the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review is also almost ubiquitously found among lists of outlets for undergraduates to publish their original research (see example here), suggesting awareness of its stature in its context.

(2) "The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources". It would be a stretch to say this journal is frequently cited, but the articles it publishes have been cited in other academic literature published in traditional academic journals (such as Pennsylvania History 63(2)(1996): 204-231). Further, the PUR is listed alongside other professional journals as a philosophical resource (see here and here). It is also carried in various libraries across the country (see here and here) and is indexed among the "commonly used periodicals" by The Library of Congress (see here), which total a small but international presence (listing in 10 US and 8 international libraries via WorldCat). As an aside, a caveat that may impair the numbers of electronic citations for this journal is the off-line (pre-internet era) nature of many of its early volumes.

And (3) "The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history," which seems to qualify this journal based on the before-mentioned fact that it was the first peer-reviewed undergraduate academic journal in the country (perhaps the world), as well as its 30 years of continued existence, albeit with sometimes infrequent publication. According to its own website, it also has some significant contributors, such as George Stephanopoulos. It's website also claims some notoriety from The New York Times which I can not independently source or elaborate on, although I assume the statement would be factual.

This journal also seems to fall within the scope of certain caveats. Its uniqueness and history as an outlet for multi-disciplinary undergraduate research and the fact that its articles are original and peer reviewed in manner befitting of other professional journals suggests that is notable in its field according to the above criteria, and, counter to the original nominator's claim, passes notability tests according to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), specifically by #3, but also by #1.

Now, to examine some of the arguments against it. "It publishes irregularly" and " is not circulated to many libraries". Neither of these are established criteria for or against either academic journal notability (per Notability (academic journals) Note #7) or general notability. Nor is the idea that its website must be up-to-date. I can confirm that I received a reply within one day from the current editor after a simple email inquiring about its status and was assured it was operational and working on updating its website. I am happy to forward the correspondence for verification, or alternatively, the email address is available on the journal's website if one would like to make independent inquires. In any case, notability is not temporary, so even if it became inactive or dead, that would not disqualify it from notability. Another thing that may hinder ascertaining its notability is the inability to access its (pre-internet) off-line volumes, and thus its lack of appearance in "google searches" should not be held against the journal (also per Note #4-6). CrazyPaco (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, Notability (academic journals) Note #6 states, "For journals in humanities, the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases, one can also look at how frequently the journal is held in various academic libraries (this information is available in Worldcat." Since this journal is in the humanities, whether it is, or is not, circulated to many libraries is indeed an established criterion as to judging its notability as an academic journal. Paco has provided links above to the library holdings listings of this journal's print and electronic editions on Worldcat, which seem to me to be few in number. Other editors here may believe that the number of libraries holding this journal is adequate to establish notability, or that the journal is notable for other reasons, but this is a judgment call each participant in this AfD will have to make for themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is the Spring 2006 issue of the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review, posted online here. I reccomend reading the "Letter from the Editor" beginning on page 6. It appears to be similar to the preface for a book. It indicates that out of 60 submissions, only four were chosen by its (peer review) selection process. Also I recommend reading this: Council on Undergraduate Research publication entitled Quarterly (Fall 2007) first posted by Crazy-Paco above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Past issues can be viewed here. It does seem to be published in an irregualar manner.---- Steve Quinn (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - Based on the above responses, and my own research - unfortunately, I don't think this article is meant for Wikipedia as a stand alone article. Wikipedia, and certain projects, have established parameters for acceptance of articles. If it were accepted in more university and college libraries that would help. Looking at the dearth of reliable sources, and the small number of college libraries that carry this publication, I don't see where this journal has any real impact on scholarship. Furthermore, based on the irregular frequency of publication, I might infer that even the University of Pittsburgh, or its departments, which produce the journal, do not consider this a noteworthy publication. It is almost as if, every now and then, someone comes along who has the inclination, or resolve, to finally publish an issue of the journal. Then two more years might pass before another issue is produced. I have no reason to believe that the University of Pittsburgh percieves this publication as more important than a homework assigment. And I do apologize if this kind of assessment "sounds" too harsh. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 23:52, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge A quick search shows that it is available in the catalogues of at least a half dozen libraries, including in Toronto and the National Library of Australia. Seems to have a diverse readership. May have a larger base offline. Ng.j (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can check library holdings in WorldCat, but they seem to be way below what we usually take to indicate notability in these AfD debates. --Crusio (talk) 16:56, 11 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. As some of the keeps have now been blocked as sockpuppets, those are now discounted. As such, the consensus becomes "delete" and so I am re-closing this as such. If you feel that this is unwarranted, please feel free to take this to Deletion Review -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. There is no clearcut consensus here, however there is no prejudice against a speedy re-nomination -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Timelines[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

A non-mainstream sub-franchise within Transformers with nothing to indicate notability. I myself haven't found anything that does indicate notability. All of the fiction and action figures/merchandise were limited releases, so it wouldn't be surprising if this truly is non-notable. NotARealWord (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking in independent reliable sources and using YouTube clips as evidence is not gonna cut the mustard. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I'm currently adding sources to the article, and trimming the fat then, this article should become acceptable. Mathewignash (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I don't often !vote delete, but this really is non-notable. The only reliable source I found is a review of one of the toys. No apparent merge or redirect target. ----Divebomb is not British 18:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Mathewignash seems to have improved the article quite a lot. If there are issues with this, they are fixable. ----Divebomb is not British 16:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So with additional sources like I just added, does this article seem worth saving? Mathewignash (talk) 22:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment blow regarding the sources. NotARealWord (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong delete~~ Original research, no in-line references, no third-party sources to verify notability and exclusively written with primary sources with no secondary sources. It does not meet the general notability guideline. Jfgslo (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As there is now less original research and many third party sources, the rational for your vote is invalid. Mathewignash (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The article has yet to show how it is notable in the real world. As it stands now, it's merely a repository of links about the figures and an exposition of all possible details instead of a summary of accepted knowledge. As it is right now, it still deserves to be deleted. Still, it has shown improvement since the original nomination, so perhaps it could still be kept, but not as it is right now. It still needs to be re-written to show its real-world impact beyond release dates, or at least show the potential to improve to show that notability in the future. Jfgslo (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - It's the official line of Fun Publications, a company who is licensed by Hasbro to make Transformers. The comic books were released in the mainstream through normal comic book distruibutors, so the arguement in the nomination that it had "limited release" only is invalid. Mathewignash (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Really, are they distributed through general comic book retail? My search on Amazon.com didn't find any f them on retail, only user-generated sales of the comics. NotARealWord (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - YES, every year they are sold through Diamond Distributors and solicited in Previews. I pick them up at any local comic book shop. http://newsodrome.com/action_figure_news/botcon-2010-transformers-timelines-comic-diamond-release-19876687 Mathewignash (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wrote a lot of that page a long time ago when putting lists of toy lines was in style. If you check the history though I recently started to re-write it as a a comic book article, based on the comic. It is a ongoing comic book with 7 issues released through mainstream distributors. We maybe should remove the toy list, and make the article about the comic book. Mathewignash (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mathewignash clearly has little regard for what counts as reliable sources WP:RS. I hardly call [36], [37],[38],[39] reliable sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly you don't know what an external link is. That youtube post is by the company that makes the comic, it is a PRIMARY source, not one used to prove notability. Same with the PDFs. They are the actual stories given away free by Fun Publications as promotions. We have agreed in the Transformers Project that Ben Yee's is an extablished and recognized expert on toy and fiction review, so his site DOES help establish the page. Mathewignash (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Would Benson Yee realy count as third-party? He's a toy expert, but BWTF is primarily about Transfomers. Plus, he's listed as one of the TF Timelines writers. Also, one of the websites cited as sources, Fallen empire toys, seems to be hosted on Wordpress, so, probably not reliable. Another website, Tomopop, seems to be user-generated, so, not very useful for notability. NotARealWord (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, content on OAFE seems to be posted/written pseudonymously, that doesn't make it seem like a reliable source. NotARealWord (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been pointed out to me that the comment I made in response to an inquiry that Mathewignash did, would be of some use in this AfD since it addresses the points that I believe need to be changed in order to modify my opinion from "strong delete" to "keep". This is my full comment:

"In reply to the question that you made on my talk page on November 28, 2010, the thing needed to make me change my vote is to read at least two references from third-party sources that are from reputable publications/reviewers that specifically address Transformers: Timelines, not a single toy or individual products, the Timelines toy line or the comic books. That is the only way to prove that an article like this can stand alone in Wikipedia. Read WP:GNG for specifics about this.

About the recent references that you added, please note that many of them do not talk about Timelines but about specific toys that are part of the toy line, so the ones that are notable are the toys, not the Timelines series.

Bear in mind that the references to show notability must show "significant coverage", which none of the current ones do, at least not about Timelines, and the sources cannot be in any way affiliated to the Transformers franchise, even if they are not officially endorsed by the producing companies. The sources to show notability must not be Transformers dedicated websites ("independent of the subject.")

As the article stands right now, it fills the criteria of "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." All those paragraphs outside of the intro are completely unencyclopedic and unjustified with the current sources. The article must not be written as a timeline because that has no relevance if there is no real-world notability.

If there are reviews about the comic books, the article should talk about the comic books, not the toys. Almost all of the article is written as a synthesis of published material that advances a position. The article should change from a toys perspective to a comic book perspective because if the comic books are minor or non-notable, the Supercbbox is unnecessary. Essentially, everything about years and figures is not encyclopedic material unless there are at least two sources that mention all of them in single reviews that are not related to the individual toys.

These sources are not acceptable to show notability because they are not independent of the subject:

www.transformersclub.com
www.bwtf.com
Hasbro Transformers Collectors Club magazine

These might be, but not as they are now:

comicnewsi.com (it's a preview, not a full review, and the review is useless if the cite does not have the full name of the reviewer or if the person is not considered as a reputable reviewer by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics.)
tomopop.com (although the article is well identified and the website does have reviews, the reviews are about specific figures not the toy line.)
fallenempiretoys.com (once again specific toy reviews, not a review of the toy line itself.)
oafe.net (same as above.)
bsckids.com (a preview, not a full review.)

While I have no doubt that the Transformers toy line series are notable as a whole, it does not need unnecessary content forks like this article. The Transformers: Timelines comic may have some notability to stand on its own, but I doubt that the derivative toy lines themselves merit more than a mention in the Transformers (toy line) article. For a reference of what I would expect from an article about Transformers: Timelines toy line, check Play-Doh or Sindy and notice the tone used to emphasize the real-world notability of the toys, something that Transformers: Timelines doesn't have at all right now.

If you manage to find at least two reviews (no product reviews) that are not about the individual toys but about the whole Transformers: Timelines toy line and that are from publications completely independent of Transformers, or if the focus of the article is about the comic books and meets the criteria of WP:CMC, then I will not object about keeping the article. As it is right now, there is very little that merits to be kept." Jfgslo (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment You're making the Comics WikiProject out to be some vast entity that has meaning outside Wikipedia. It doesn't. ----Divebomb is not British 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Timelines is a fanclub related line, not a mass market one. It is very unlikely that any evidence of notability outside of the fandom can be found. --Khajidha (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please actually read the article. ----Divebomb is not British 20:27, 3 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just added several citations from the book "Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future" by Erin Brereton. It's an unauthorized (unlicensed) book that talks about the Transformers history up to 2006 (when it was published), and it talks about the timelines toys and Fun Publications on several pages. So that may be helpful in establishing notability by a third party source. Mathewignash (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you (or anybody else) should remove the non-reliable sources that I pointed out earlier. NotARealWord (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it seems that anyone can post on Tomopop (another website cited) if they sign up. Doesn't look very reliable that way. NotARealWord (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is it Wikipedia's policy to remove such links? Mathewignash (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, removing references to non-reliable sources? Would it possibly be anything other than YES? NotARealWord (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - also, regarding the fiction's distribution, the BotCon comics are only 6 issues. The bulk of the fiction is prose stories only available to logged-in members on the fan club website. NotARealWord (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What is your point? That you have to pay to read the stories? The main comic book is distriputed like any other comic. The "magazine" requires a subscription, also, not unusual. Several of the online stories are free to anyone (and some magazine back issues), but with a subscription you get access to the web site with online stories. I don't recall a requirement that stories be available "free" to be mentioned on Wikipedia! The Fantastic Four comic book is SOLD, not given away. How is the way it's sold relivant? Mathewignash (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is, TF Timelines doesn't seem like it even tries to be mainstream like other TF franchises. It's not the price, it's the stories themselves.

Comment - I'll have to remember that arguement. You can delete an article on fiction on wikipedia because the story isn't trying to be "mainstream" enough. Mathewignash (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "not trying to be mainstream" I mean, is not meant to appeal to people who aren' already fans of transformers, more into it than the general target group the rest of transformers is aimed at. Would calling the entirety of timelines fancruft be unfair? Was it ever meant to be anything beyond that? NotARealWord (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Transformers (comics) --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC) — Ultrablastic123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - User blocked as a sock puppet of a known disruptor. Mathewignash (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reasoning? Mathewignash (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, only 6 issues are comic books. Doesn't seem a fitting redirect. NotARealWord (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6 annual issues ongoing, plus a bi-monthly comic-sized magazine with fiction in every issue. 36 issues of that out. Plus 2 prose stories open to the public to read, and another dozen that you have to pay for, plus a half dozen publically performed voice plays actual animation voice actors doing their character's voices... and a couple computer animated videos. More than 6 issues of comic. Mathewignash (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The magazine isn't actually called Timelines. There are only 6 timelines comic books. Everyhing else are not comic books and/or not timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So are you saying the enture article might be better suited by calling it something like "Fun Publication"? to over all their work or that we need a seperate article for the magazine? Anyways I counted and it's 6 annual comic books called "Timelines" plus the special edition one released for the Nightbeat action figure, thats 7, plus the 15 prose fiction stories on their web site, that's 22. Mathewignash (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is good (rename or split) if this AfD is closed as "keep" (which I'm not hoping for). NotARealWord (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this user Ultrablastic123 seems to have been a registered editor for all of a week, and has done little editing except vote in deletion nominations. Should we be worried about this being another sock puppet attack, like the last 5 sock puppets who came in voting to delete Transformers articles? Mathewignash (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's anything wrong with you filing a Sockpuppet investigation or something. NotARealWord (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Excuse me, but I am simply trying to help improve and clean wikipedia of articles which I think dont match up to stanards, I have never had anything to do with sockpuppeting or ever will. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Anyone who does this many edits to AFDs within a short time of their registration is a likely sock. Take 'im to SPI. (Please don't be offended. The Transformers WikiProject has been getting swarmed with socks recently, and we can't be too careful.) ----Divebomb is not British 09:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable as per 22 refs --84.193.193.10 (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A significant portion of those 22 refs are primary sources. Third-party sources are required to establish notability. NotARealWord (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Twenty two reliable sources have weighed in on the merits of this topic. Movadito (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC) User has been indeffed as sockpuppet of banned user Wiki brah. ----Divebomb is not British 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fanboy sites and minor comic reviews are not sufficiently independent of the subject to establish notability as far as I'm concerned. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a specific complaint about a citation not being valid? I'd expect reviews on an independent comic to come from comic book review sites, but they are valid reviews from valid sources. Mathewignash (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only a fundamentalist inclusionist could call the sources reliable I mean this [40] a violation of WP:YOUTUBE and sites like [41] are fansites hardly independent of the site. Dwanyewest (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Will you knock it off? Mathewignash has explained this above. The YouTube video is a primary source and BWTF is the website of Benson Yee, an established expert in the field and one of the authors. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. ----Divebomb is not British 18:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dwanyewest, Did you even read the rule you sent me to? it said "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page" - It is a link to the primary source. Learn the rules before you start quoting them please. Mathewignash (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed those YouTube links are reliable, but they do not establish notability. Same goes for BWTF.com. Benson Yee is even listed as a writer for this stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding that book cited (Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future), I imagine there wouldn't be much Timelines stuff it could have covered. Fun Publications at that point didn't even have their own continuities yet The Classics, Shattered Glass and TransTech continuities had their fiction premieres later. Plus, all the website stories were released from 2007 onward. NotARealWord (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future talked about the 2005 and 2006 Botcon, it's toys and fiction. Ben Yee helped write ONE issue of the comic back in 2005. This doesn't discount ALL the toy reviews since then. Mathewignash (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he was involved in about five stories. Since he did write some Timelines stuff, that means he isn't entirely unaffiliated with TF Timelines. Also, stuff released at BotCon (from 2005 onward) counts as Timelines. Information on the event itself goes in the convention's own article.

NotARealWord (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I was the writer of this comic book, of course I'm going to give it a positive review, I'm automatically biased.
— BWTF

NotARealWord (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very much of the article is a toy list. It's been pointed out on the project talk page that that kind of stuff isn't encyclopedic or just unnecessary for character articles. (see here and more of the talk page archives.) Perhaps the same might apply for other articles like this one? NotARealWord (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the toy list should be reworked into something that is character list first, toy list second. ----Divebomb is not British 18:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided to not specifically mention any toys for the article on BotCon. i find that any individual toy is usually fancruft/trivia. A character list may be tricky since story-wise, Timelines is not one story but a bunch of stories which sometimes have connections with each other.

"A topic should have an article if a non-stub article can be written without resorting to trivia, unverifiable material, or unencylopedic material."
— User:Starblind/Inclusion

Whoever is gonna close this discussion should ponder this: Does the article demonstrate potential to be a non-stub without resorting to fancruft and/or trivia? Also, Transformers: The Fantasy, The Fun, The Future does seem to mention the collector's club, but there couldn't be much coverage since Fun Publications only started running the club the year before that book was published, and thus they have not yet produced much stuff to give coverage to.. Using the "From inside the book" search function, it seems that the word Timelines does not actually appear inside the book. NotARealWord (talk) 11:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Timelines an currently ongoing comic book with new issues and stories coming out every few months the answer to whether this article has potential for growth is YES! No, they don't use the word "timelines" in the book you mention, just calling them Botcon/club toys and comics. Using shorthand for a toy line name doesn't exclude them as a source of a review by a third party. The book does picture and review the Timelines toys from the first 2 years of the line. It even went on about how popular the toy of Landquake was. Mathewignash (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the potential I was asking for. You're comment is suggesting that "it (the article) won't be mostly trivia after a few more stories are released." As in there isn't yet enough non-trivial information to write an article. Instead of "There is a lot of non-trivial information". NotARealWord (talk) 07:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not sure if the popularity of the Landquake toy really mattered back when it was first released. It was given away to people who joined the club and subscribed to the magazine, so they didn't have much choice wether or not to get the toy. NotARealWord (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think Timelines is entirely fancruft.
This is a comic for a convention so it plays solely to those fans (...) this was done to have fun with and strictly for fellow Transformers fans. (...) If your not a Transformers fan, you're not going to like this comic at all so don't bother.
— Review by BW Media
. NotARealWord (talk) 07:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My goodness, a comic that is written for it's fans! That's unheard of? Is the Fantastic Four is written for people who don't like it? Mathewignash (talk)

As in Exclusively and only for it's fans. There's a difference between not hating something and being a fan of it. Similarly, someone who goes to a toy store looking for something interesting and buys Transformers is different from someone who hunts down a specific Transformers figure on various stores and auctions to give their collection a since of "completeness". Timelines is aimed towards people like the latter. The stuff is distributed through what is called "Hasbro Transformers Collectors' Club. As in people who are really into Transformers instead of people who simply enjoy it. NotARealWord (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point is, it's fancrut, as in, you wouldn't care about it if you weren't a fan. An article generally should not rely mainly on fancruft and this is meant to be fancruft. More so than Kamen Rider Decade, most likely. Timelines can't possibly introduce anybody to it's parent franchise (unlike Decade, I guess) . Also, none of the non-primary sources fix the issue addressed by Jfgslo, being that they're not about Timelines overall, just individual issues. I don't se anything in the sources that actually seem like "extensive coverage" of Timelines itself. or example, that nytimes source is mainly about the convention, not the stuff released there. Like that book cited, it appears that doesn't even contain the word "timelines". NotARealWord (talk) 16:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, THIS is not quite a reliable source. It says "Fun Publications has organized BotCon since 1994". They only organized since 2005. Plus, it's mainly about the convention. NotARealWord (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A source isn't reliable because it makes one mistake? Wow. Just wow. ----Divebomb is not British 17:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite reliable. It's a very short source, so the mistake stands out quite a bit. NotARealWord (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This stuff is aimed at a really specific niche. Not one one based on genre or taste like sci-fi fans, giant robot fans or super hero fans, but more specific: Transformers fans. Would you expect notability from something made specifically for it's own fans, instead of people who enjoy things of its genre? Notice that review I quoted was for one of the comics that are available through general release. So the club-exclusive stories would be even more fancruft-y. NotARealWord (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's put this "fancruft" arguement to bed. - NotARealWord has managed to call this page "Fancruft" about 6 times in his various opinions. I would like to point him to WP:ITSCRUFT "while some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted... Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." This comic book is a licensed media put out by Fun Publications, who does OTHER things besides Transformers. It's written by professional writers, illustrated by professional artists, and distributed through Diamond Distributors. You can buy it at the local comic book store. You can buy advertising space in the book, it's completely professional. Nothing NARW has said seems to back his claims that it's a "fancruft" besides that he just doesn't seem to like the stories. That's his opinion, and not really a valid arguement for deletion. Mathewignash (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm calling it fancruft because that's what it's meant to be Fancruft is something that only matters to it's fans. Timelines has got to fall under that. And why do you think I don't like Timelines anyway? Check it's edit history on TV Tropes [42]. There's gotta be something terribly wrong if a great deal of the writing about it there was by somebody who hates it.

Because cruft is a real problem, efforts to identify cruft should be taken in good faith.
— Wikipedia:Discussing cruft

NotARealWord (talk) 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that:

None of the non-primary sources discuss the fan club stories, which make up a great deal of Timelines media
The lack of the word "timelines" in sources
(Read following quote)
Since the original comic is (so far) the only story available outside the fanclub, not only is it the only part of the universe most people know, but many folks also don't even know there were more stories.
— TV Tropes entry on, Shattered Glass (emphasis was added by me)

Seems like people don't really discuss/write about timelines as it's own topic outside of the TF community. BotCon toys and media are discussed as a subtopic of BotCon, and transformersclub.com stories don't appear to have 'any coverage. So yeah, this does seem like people just don't care about this stuff. NotARealWord (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The link you provided was about removing "cruft" in articles. I'm arguing against you calling the Transformers: Timelines comics THEMSELVES "Cruft". If the article itself needs cleanup, please contribute to it. Mathewignash (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - tvtropes.com isn't really a reliable source, particularly since it seems to be edited by you, and you are using it to prove your own point! You could make it say anything. You would never allow me to use it to prove this article's notability, and likewise, you can't use it to disprove notability. Anyways, the question here is NOT whether fans consider it a part of BOTCON, the question here is whether this article has proven itself notable. We have reliable third party sources enough to prove that. Mathewignash (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way,it's tvtropes.org, not .com. And actually, that quote on TV Tropes wasn't by me. I wrote the Timelines page, but didn't do much on the Shattered Glass page. Even if it was, quoting our own writing isn't disallowed (WP:SELFQUOTE, for example). Are you suggesting that the quote is incorrect and that people generally do know about the transformersclub.com stories? The seeming lack of coverage regarding the transformersclub.com stories would suggest that the quote is corret. Also, as mentioned in the review I quoted, this stuff has absolutely no appeal to people who aren't fans. With "regular" TF media, there would be a significant number of casual viewers/readers who would give it a try even if they're terribly unfamiliar with TF. The same cannot be said with Timelines. It's designed to be of interest only towards fans. Stuff that's of pretty much no interest outside a portion of the fanbase is fancrut, and that's the point of Timelines. That's what I mean by "it's fancruft". They don't hope to get any people who aren't already fans to be interested in this stuff. So, it's meant to be fancruft. De-crufting this article is not possible. I think that's what Khajidha meant by "Timelines is a fanclub related line, not a mass market one". As pointed out by Jfsglo, there doesn't seem to be any coverage of TF Timelines as a whole. No reviews of a whole set of toys, or a group of stories. The "no extensive overage" thing is the main issue in a deletion debate. You could say that the Watchmen movie was fancruft, but it did receive significant coverage and criticism for being overly loyal to it's source and having no appeal to non-fans. I reiterate that so far, there seems to be no coverage whatsoever on the transformersclub.com stories. So yeah, not really enough third party sources.At least not "extensive" ones. And no, it's not wether or not people consider as part of BotCon, it's just that only the parts of Timelines overlapping with BotCon seem to get coverage. No extensive coverage on Timelines itself. NotARealWord (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable, and poorly referenced piece of OR/cruft. This amounts to mostly non-prose WP:PLOT and is more suited to a fansite such as Wankia, er, Wikia.com. Jack Merridew 22:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I Don't see how you can call this mostly PLOT when no issue of the story is more than a single sentence of summary. Mathewignash (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RECEPTION - As was suggested by the constructive criticism for this page I started a section for the reception of the comic. Mathewignash (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That section is completely lacking sources. Plus it only serves to prove my point. "the stories play directly to the fans" imply that they are of absolutely no interest towards non-fans, or at least that they're supposed to be that way. Ergo, fancruft. Plus it only mentions the annual comic books, still no coverage of the transformersclub.com prose stories. NotARealWord (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only third-party review of any Timelines fiction used as a reference is the one I quoted as proof that Timelines is fancruft. ("If your not a Transformers fan, you're not going to like this comic at all so don't bother.") Not really extensive coverage since it doesn't even have a plot synopsis. NotARealWord (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We don't need third party sources to prove plot, that can be done with primary sources, we need to it prove reception, which is what I did. The fact that something was received poorly by it's critics doesn't mean it shouldn't be on wikipedia, it just helps write the wikipedia article about it. We don't remove a movie from Wikipeida because Leonard Maltin gave it one star, we say it had bad reviews Mathewignash (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bad review, it's one that makes it seem like fancruft. Fancruft is not uninteresting or terrible, it just means that very few people are going to be interested in it. Which is intentional on the part of Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding secondary sources and plot, the lack of plot summaries in any sources makes this seem non-notable. Notability is also an issue. Not just verifiability. NotARealWord (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, verification needed for that book source regarding the reception section. Does it say "the Timelines toyline was popular" in any way? It doesn't seem to contain the word Timelines. Also, Timelines toyline =/=BotCon toyline. Not sure if this shows I'm assuming bad faith, but I don't want an article kept because of something that wasn't actually in the source. NotARealWord (talk) 20:24, 13 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 12:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Purple (drink)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG; no coverage of it online from WP:Reliable sources; music reference and journal cite mention Purple drank but not this variant, which leaves only an entry from a user-editable recipe site. Possible WP:Conflict of interest by creator: some sort of music or drinks promotion? Proposed deletion contested by creator. Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Invitrovanitas (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best, if it exists, this is a minor variant of Purple drank, which already has an extensively referenced article. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 15:27, 4 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 12:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real Madrid C.F. 2–6 FC Barcelona[edit]

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

Non-notable mid-season association football match. Taken to AfD since PROD was not an option any more. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to El Clásico, the article covering the rivalry between the two clubs. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--El Unique (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, no need for a seperate article. Giant Snowman 14:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable scheduled league match. All meetings of the two clubs have similar build-up and post-match analysis so coverage should be considered WP:ROUTINE and only reflects on the notability of El Clásico not the individual match. The surprisingly lop-sided scoreline may have prompted much hyperbole in the immediate aftermath, but ultimately this clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS & WP:EVENT. _wjemather ^bigissue 14:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 16:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the sports page. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Xboxandhalo2 (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just a single match, no need for an article. Per The Bushranger, Wikipedia isn't a sports page. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a scheduled league match. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:50, 8 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) 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Hartsock[edit]

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

Obvious vanity page: one main contributor claims he is the subject of the article, and creator appears to be someone closely associated with him. The subject in question is plainly not notable: he's apparently been film crew or set dresser on a few films that are barely or questionably notable in their own right, he's created a few utterly non-notable film works, he's self-published a book through iUniverse, he's been interviewed a few times on non-notable radio shows, and he's written a couple of columns for mostly non-notable blogs. The article makes no claim of notability, and if it did, that claim could not be substantiated. Roscelese (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Someone claiming to be the subject has been deleting large swaths of sourced material. He apparently doesn't want a complete article.[43] As far as I can tell, his leading achievement is producing an independent video. However I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable news sources. Will Beback talk 09:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable guy that wrote a few small independent things such as small articles and videos. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources? I am correcting the info. He was featured on CNN in a 1 hour documentary---notable enough for my standards. Looking for sources where he worked with James O'Keefe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janewellsmier (talk • contribs) 17:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the CNN clip.[44] It's only about one minute long, all him talking, and he basically makes one point: that controversy sells. The fact that he was included in the documentary is somewhat significant, but the piece itself doesn't seem usable as a source for the article. Will Beback talk 22:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A pity too that the author has taken WP:OWNership of the article. In looking at online avaiable souces,[45][46] (and ingonoring the articles written by the subject in various publications), it seems that a decent little article meeting WP:GNG might almost be possible, but as this journalist has not taken time to understand WP:COI, and wishes the article to only state certain things, and only in the manner he wishes, I can predict nothing but continued problems. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plus, hanging on James O'Keefe's coat-tails doesn't bestow notability for a separate article: see Hannah Giles who had a much larger hand in the ACORN videos than just "shooting B-roll", and she merely redirects to the larger ACORN Controversy article. (And no Mr. Hartsock to be found there.) — DennisDallas (talk) 17:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After watching the Rich Zubaty WP:COI & WP:OWN battle of mind-numbing BS over a self-important vanity-press author drag on (on & off, of course, but throughout 2010 during multiple blocks & deletes — and three years before that), now having to waste editors' & admins' time over another vanity-piece —he's mostly a blogger— isn't worth the drain on volunteer resources. And although he's a twice-published author (one merely co-written), I don't think either tome is notable on its own, but his co-author might be (although her article reeks of WP:AUTOBIO).

A new editor to the article (but probably his co-author) just yesterday added a Fox News appearance from November (along with a half-dozen other edits — curiously after no activity since Feb. 2009) and also commented here (see unsigned comment above). But I've had no off-wiki response from the subject nor his main "employer" (since that's the web bio the AnonIP cribbed from) to try to verify the claimed "identity" of the AnonIP. It's been a week already.

All I'm seeing is Socks/Meat and COI. — DennisDallas (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to a YouTube copy of the Fox show discussing Hartsock's blog.[47] I don't know which day it was on, but the citation is incorrect. Here's the Hulu version of the show on the episode in the citation.[48] It has a different group of commentatators and the host is wearing different clothes. Aside from commenting on some of his points the personal remarks about him seem to be mostly negative.

As for socks and COI, there seems to be a close connection between this article and Krystle Nicole Russin. (That article looked like this before I trimmed it.[49]). Folks need to remember that Wikipedia does not exist for promotion. Will Beback talk 09:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just stumbled on this page by following a group of attackers attacking others, etc., so I have no knowledge other than what is on the current article page. It’s probably too late to help this poor shlub who is being hounded by an editing cabal that seeks to determine what constitutes a meaningful article using all types of forensics that is irrelevant to wikipedia rules. What he did in the past, how obnoxious he is in editing, or how naïve he is about Wikipedia etiquette has nothing to do with proposing this article for deletion. Obviously, the best approach is to constructively fix the article, but if his edit warring and ownership makes that too difficult, have him blocked, but don’t delete the article to punish him. It seems to me the editing cabal is resorting to Afd because otherwise editing here is a waste of time – if so, for those who it is a waste of time, there is plenty of other articles that could use your attention. I checked three or four of the references that were sound; that material can be kept, and the rest can be tagged for citations needed if it is not contentious, and if it is, it should be deleted. The troublesome shlub should be told in a nice way that information in biographies must be cited in proper secondary, independent references for everyone’s protection. The best proof that the editing cabal is being deletists when it shouldn't - there are only three or four folks here voting one way or the other!Edstat (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ed: FWIW, I peeked at your (blanked just today) Talkpage and other AfD's you've been a party to, and can only gather that your use here of un-civil terms such as "group of attackers" and "editing cabal" and "deletists" (and your Talkpage remark of "why waste time with all the charades") doesn't show an assumption of good faith on your part, but rather "having a chip on your shoulder" from your prior AfD experiences. As the nominating (and previously un-involved) editor clearly noted, the notability threshold is in question, and persons other than the subject with COI issues may be adding the mix. (And, so you won't retort as on other AfD's, this isn't a critique of your vote — just its content.)— DennisDallas (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean. There are several verifiable secondary independent sources in this article, and editing cabals ignore that and instead rely on their forensics. For example, someone found a Fox news reference and it was denigrated because of when it was found and by guessing who might have added the reference - which completely overlooks the fact that it is a verifiable reference. And your "peek" is just more of the same forensics that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Good luck to this poor shlub - he'll need it against this cabal!Edstat (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edstat, with all due courtesy, I think you're confusing notability with verifiability. (Both are important, of course, but lack of verifiability is not the reason I nominated this article.) If we were to make the statement that "Hartsock has written an article about the Tea Party," the Fox source would be sufficient to verify that. However, the fact that he was discussed this one time on a program that airs almost every day does not mean that he is notable enough to be the subject of an article. Roscelese (talk) 03:38, 6 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Euro 2010 qualifying[edit]

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

I not sure if the UEFA Euro 2010 qualifying that did happen, but I can't find any references related to the article. I assume that the article is a hoax. JJ98 (Talk) 08:13, 4 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. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Durham Proverbs[edit]

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

Blatant WP:OR that fails WP:NOT#ESSAY. Ironholds (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree this article has serious issues with original research, but there's clearly enough sources out there to form an encyclopaedic article. This article is definitely fixable, and at the very worst, the original research sections need deleting. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First page of G book search alone shows plenty of sources. Probably more on databases. The article does need clean-up and I'll watch and try to get to it, but am busy elsewhere at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly some sections of the article are problematic and need some attention, notably the translations, but the subject is clearly notable and has substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Malleus Fatuorum 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with above. There are plenty of scholarly articles to use to write the article, so no need to delete, rather needs fixing. If no one can work on it right off the bat, remove the sections that aren't sourced and that should fix most of the issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The article makes excessive use of the {{sfn}} template. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And why is that a problem (whatever you mean by "excessive")? Is the use of a template you don't like sufficient reason to delete an article on a clearly notable subject in your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Another problem was a redlink to William Horman, but that seems to have been fixed, sort of. I see more redlinks creeping in. Seriously, this is a daft nomination and should be snowballed. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re "daft nomination" - it was original research written in a first person tone when I nominated it. Sorry for the failure to respond to anything - I've had no proper wiki-access since early Friday. Ironholds (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That joking around may be comprehensible in context on my user talk page, but it won't be comprehensible here. Uncle G (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apologies for obscure comments above. The article was in poor shape when nominated, but a quick search would have shown that the subject is notable, discussed at some length in various books and journals. It is now clearly written and well-sourced. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not disagreeing, simply pointing out that when I nominated it, a quick search would have found it to be an originally researched essay written in the first person. Notability was never discussed in my rationale. Ironholds (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - So perhaps you ought to close this AfD now? Malleus Fatuorum 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Certainment; going to scrabble around for the right template now. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 5 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 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoga of Silence[edit]

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

Non-notable yoga system —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 20 November 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) 00:44, 27 November 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 06:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of references that would establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:10, 4 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 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ P[edit]

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

Overtly promotional article, unsourced, doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Kelly ^hi! 06:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous promotion which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Scrap the whole thing and if he is notable start again. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a straight-up violation of WP:PROMO and he has not been noticed except in self-generated social networking and downloading sites. Though maybe his bland name makes it difficult to find news about him. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 10 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 article speedily deleted (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmin Taylor[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ENT, insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Evil saltine (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found significant coverage of this model to meet WP:N, or WP:BIO. Them From Space 06:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 Not notable, no assertion of significance. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 11:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, "signed model and an Ultra Vixen" isn't a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, no coverage, not a single source. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:52, 4 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 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarina Valentina[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:ENT, insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Evil saltine (talk) 05:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PEOPLE per WP:TOOSOON (if ever at all). No WP:RS coverage. Singular career. Found only in SPS, forums, and blogs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarina's worked with a number of big names (some that have their own entries) and has a dvd out. Most of the changes from the other day was from her fans after she call attention to the notices on her twitter account. --Freddboxx (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at WP:TOOSOON. Twitter, Facebook, and other forums and blogs do not do much for notability, if anything. And working with other notable people does not loan any notability itself. Having a DVD might help, but only if it and Sarina's career have received critical commentary in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet PORNBIO nor the GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:48, 8 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. G7: Author blanked HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Giusti[edit]

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

Nonnotable writer whose claim to fame is coming in third place for two nonnotable awards issued by the Idaho Press Club. Coverage focused on him as an individual is scant. Them From Space 05:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have considerably edited the article to remove the promotional language and exagerated claims and to correct implications that he had won bigger awards than he actually had. There is nothing about the subject himself out there, as either a journalist, musician or phototographer. Despite claims that as a jazz guitarist he was a "mainstay of the Chicago scene for a decade", I haven't been able to find a single review. The awards are negligible (from the Idaho Press Club and both 3rd place), and the publications he has written for are local and not notable. One of them is actually a newsletter and the "interview" with Boz Scaggs is in the reader-generated section "Fan reviews" on Scraggs' fansite.[50]. The writing for the Rochester City News (free weekly) is actually in their blog sections and it's unclear what the criteria are for inclusion. As a photographer, his work has only appeared in local newspapers in his own articles, and there is no evidence of any exhibitions of his work in galleries (notable or otherwise). Comprehensively fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) and doesn't fulfill any of the alternative criteria for musicians or creative professionals. Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article's creator has blanked the article page [51]. I have reverted the blanking but presumably he/she is requesting deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was my attempt to add resources about journalists, a topic of interest to me. I didn't realize that it would stir up such debate. Feel free to delete the post and save everyone the time. This was also my first article so I'm not sure of all the ins and the outs of how to properly request things and post things. Thanks. RalphyJones (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7 as Author blanked and is voting delete. d m z 18:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G7 per the comments made by the author above.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 6 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 - non-controversial closure (withdrawn by the nominator). Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Bianconi[edit]

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

Source it or delete it The Eskimo (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took me about the same time to reference it as for you to nominate. Not really productive spending of WP time. keep. Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took about 30 minutes after the AFD for someone to finally provide a reference (in German, mind you) and get this article up to standard for a BLP. Pretty productive I think. Sorry you think otherwise. I withdraw my deletion nom, so, in my opinion, it can be closed and the "no references" tag removed. The Eskimo (talk) 05:43, 4 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 12:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dunn (California)[edit]

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

Source it or delete it The Eskimo (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. State senators pass WP:POLITICIAN and Google News searches yield plenty of relevant hits (some behind paywalls). AfD is not cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a former member of a state legislature. And the nom should read WP:BEFORE instead of using language that seems to demand that other people do the work. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 17:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable by definition as a state senator. Eskimo, I notice that you recently made a number of deletion nominations or prods giving the rationale "source it or delete it". That is not a valid rationale for deletion. A valid rationale would be something like "unverified" or "non-notable", and before you make that nomination, you are supposed to do a little research to see if verification or evidence of notability actually do exist. Thank you for your efforts to clean up Wikipedia, but please be more careful to give a valid rationale. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks to User:Jim Miller, the article is no longer unsourced. --MelanieN (talk) 04:45, 5 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 Kojima Productions. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shuyo Murata[edit]

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

Source it or delete it The Eskimo (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Questions for nominator: "Source it or delete it"; just who is this curiously gruff nomination addressing -- me? Well, I'm not going to source it (doing so would take time even if it were possible); so do I therefore have to delete it? That I could accomplish easily, but I'd then be accused of having gone rouge. -- Hoary (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some minor verification at 1UP (site search shows more hits, but I'm getting an internal server error from them), Kotaku. If notability is in question, perhaps he passes WP:CREATIVE? At the very least, a redirect to Kojima Productions or Metal Gear rather than deletion. Marasmusine (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kojima Productions per Marasmusine --Teancum (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as failing the WP:GNG. Insufficient sources. 74.198.9.141 (talk) 00:32, 7 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 as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Birdsall[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no secondary sources found. Many google hits, but they're all on a California judge. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found quite a lot of Google hits about the one we're looking for, but they're all self-published. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 4 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Binford[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources; any sources found were for the other Thomas Binford. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar shows nine papers with over 100 citations each, a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1, and the AAAI Fellow is a pass of WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how he could be confused with the other Thomas Binford (presumably meaning Thomas W. Binford). A googlebooks search for "Thomas O. Binford" gives 456 hits[52]. GoogleScholar results are also pretty impressive[53], with top citation hits 543, 336, 324, etc. Given that he did most of his work in pre-internet era in the field with short shelf-life for most papers, that's pretty impressive. I have also added the info and the ref re him being an elected fellow of AAAI, where the election citation says: "for his role as a founding father in the field of computer vision and model-based perception in robotics". Plus I added a couple of refs to articles about him in Indian press. Certainly more work on the article is needed, but it is fairly clear that the subject passes both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is kept, it is probably a good idea to move the title to Thomas O. Binford, for disambiguation purposes. Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is clearly notable with GS cites of 543, 336, 324, 258.... as shown by Eppstein. Nom should do WP:Before before making further nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Keep per above. Pioneering AI researcher. Ray^Talk 16:28, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should've tried the Thomas O. Binford search on scholar, since that found stuff my searches didn't. I'll withdraw my nom. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:33, 5 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 12:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Atkinson[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources; autobiography. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Not a bad list of credits for a freelance drummer, but sadly nothing that could be considered substantial independent third-party coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 4 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 12:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gijs Andriessen[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant productions, lacks non trivial coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would agree that have found no WP:RS to base a bio on. Found a couple of mentions that he appear in different things but nothing about him. Wolfstorm000 (talk) 20:25, 9 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 12:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Karbalaei Norouz[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since 2008, no reliable secondary sources. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Nothing in Persian. I found his name here as coauthor of a book, but isn't enough to pass notabality.Farhikht (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, if it was notable someone would improve it. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:39, 7 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 speedily deleted per G11. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 05:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"cyber journals"[edit]

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

Non-notable journals. Appears to fail WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is nothing wrong with this article. No copyright information has been used. Why do you keep suggesting this page to be deleted!!?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Publisher2011 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Because it fails to meet the criteria in WP:NOTBOOK. ttonyb (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also blatant advertising. Speedy delete G11. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 04:07, 4 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) 14:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chilly Tee[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Only one single released, under an unknown label. Single reference provided is not enough to meet our requirements of coverage in multiple sources. Notability is NOTINHERITED, so it doesn't matter who his father is. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Ofew19 (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the fact that AFD is WP:NOTAVOTE, the closing admin should consider this user's contribution history, which is short and involves questionable edits. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 17:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete was on a major label, but just one nonhit album and single doesn't pass our guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For his rapping there is another article in Billboard ("Just do it. (rap singer Chilly Tee's 'Get Off Mine' album)" 28 August 1993). He is also a CEO (Laika (company)) and an animator (imdb page). He got an Annie Award nomination and a Visual Effects Society Award nomination for his work as lead animator on Coraline (film). He's had coverage in The Oregonian ("Travis Knight named Laika's new CEO" by Mike Rogoway, 5 March 2009 and "Sons of Nike royals ascend in Knight's empire" by BRENT HUNSBERGER; MIKE ROGOWAY, 13 September 2007) and in Daily Variety ("Nike father-son duo lace up 'Coraline'; Knights' Laika co. launches first feature effort" by Peter Debruge, 6 February 2009). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 24 November 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) 01:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i was thinking to move it to Travis Knight but thereis already a baskettball player with that name... --Melaen (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there should be a move. Don't know the best place. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:22, 29 November 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:36, 4 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) 14:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bombus (software)[edit]

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

I have not been able to locate any reliable, independent verification for this software. Just download sites, etc. Therefore probably does not pass WP:Notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm recently added links to XSF and ohloh.net project page. This opensource software mainly used in Russia since 2005, so references mainly in russian. Some other links to independed reviews are located at offsite, including German and Italian articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.132.146.125 (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, I'll have a closer look at some later, although the handful I checked were either unreliably published or trivial mentions. Marasmusine (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:47, 19 November 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) 01:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked through the articles in the list linked to above - it's indiscriminate as to reliability (Livejournal?!) and a lot of the links are broken, but the following seem to be the most promising. I'm not familiar with the sites, so I would like further opinions on their reliability and significance. Marasmusine (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Computerra.ru "Mobile Jabber-Client"
- Mobi.ru "Страница не найдена"
- f1cd.ru - Interview with Eugene Stakhov
- ComputerBild.ru "Instant messaging - from a mobile phone"

As I'm from Russian, I can say that computerra and "f1cd" are large informational resources about IT/software. Links that you give are "electronic version" of articles published in "paper" magazines, that this resources was published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.132.146.252 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:32, 4 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. The arguments presented by those recommending deletion would appear to be effectively countered by the 'keep'ers. With this in mind, the consensus is to keep all of these articles (please nominate invidual articles at AfD if you feel that there are specific ones which should be deleted) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Maryland[edit]

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

Unencyclopedic and unsourced mess. --Divebomb is not British 18:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well ----Divebomb is not British 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and possibly clear out Category:Lists of shopping malls as well). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 18:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide NotARealWord (talk) 19:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few entries in the list are notable enough for inclusion, and the categories are sufficient in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - The lists can be kept, but they need to be cleaned up into a table format with pertinent information, such as what is seen in Shopping malls in New Jersey. In the case of the U.S. list, it would help to split it by state to manage size. Dough 48 72 02:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The world is not a static place. As more and more malls are built, the list will become ever harder to maintain. ----Divebomb is not British 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The very same line of reasoning could be used against almost any list - "as more and more presidents get inaugurated, the List of United States Presidents will bevome ever harder to maintain." It's true, but not a convincing rationale for deletion. Huon (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Malls are built much more often than US presidents are elected. ----Divebomb is not British 17:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
— WP:NOTGUIDE

NotARealWord (talk) 15:26, 28 November 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list does not " include every tourist attraction, etc. " Rather, it contains ones notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The few red links need to be checked to see if they are also. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 5 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) 20:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unmaintainable and unencyclopedic list lacking in sourcing. Classic example of WP:LISTCRUFT right there. --Divebomb is not British 19:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well ----Divebomb is not British 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per these lists are prone to OR and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why should we have a list of every single mall in the U.S? NotARealWord (talk) 20:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcastic Comment Because it's useful! (Seriously, read the previous five AFDs.) ----Divebomb is not British 20:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep standard list, every article in Wikipedia is prone to OR, and any article or list on any geographic topic would be a Wikitravel like thing. Wikitravel has prices and restaurant menus and admission fees that change quickly, and that is not evident here in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few entries in the list are notable enough for inclusion, and the categories are sufficient in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are sometimes also deleted because they duplicate the functionality of a category and the category serves the purpose better.
— Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Lists

Categories and list are not mutually exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since this list is only links and doesn't explain it's entries in any way. Sinc this list is so large, it would be impossible to actually do so (explaining each entry). Thus, a simple category would work better. NotARealWord (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment But the list's clear definition is exactly what the problem with it is. It's a list of every single shopping mall in the United States of America. You can't possibly maintain a list with a scope that large. A category, yes. But a list? Nooooo. ----Divebomb is not British 17:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an effective means of organizing articles for malls by city within state. No issues have existed with any difficulty in maintaining these lists to keep up with the addition of new notable shopping malls. Alansohn (talk) 08:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has anyone here ever used this list for anything? If I want to find a shopping mall near a city or in a state I would just use Google or something similar. I can't think of a scenario in which anyone would use this list for anything other than looking at it and saying "What a lot of shopping malls everywhere". Why do people like to spend their time maintaining something which is never used? Is this just a product of compulsive list-making disorder? Dingo1729 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think people use encyclopedias to decide where to shop, that is not what they are for. However when I am looking for that mall that used to be called by a different name, and now want to know the new name, I can go to the list to take me to that article. Or want to find what the first mall in, say, New Jersey, I look here. This is just a navigation device to make it easier to find articles, the same as any other list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, some lists do contain interesting or even useful information. They don't all use that "navigational aid" excuse. And I assume you were imagining ways in which someone might use the list rather than saying that you have really used it. I agree that an encyclopedia isn't a place that people look at to find somewhere to shop. Dingo1729 (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any valid category can be a valid list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where that remark is coming from, but I do hope you're not planning on creating a list for every category in Wikipedia. I'd really advise against it. Dingo1729 (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already started the project. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment, I haven't used this specific article, but I have used the List of shopping malls in Thailand article - I couldn't remember the name of the place, but I knew where it was. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 4 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a list to have enough advantages, it must be able to explain each individual entry. The scope of this list is far too large to the point that a category works better. NotARealWord (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A category doesn't mean you can't have a list, no Wikipedia rule says so. Categories can be just as difficult to navigate, some have over one hundred pages. With a list you can use the browser's find function, you can't do that with a category that spans multiple pages. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is just looking for shopping malls by state or region or whatever, subcategories would suffice. NotARealWord (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated again, to see if it sinks in: A category doesn't mean you can't have a list, no Wikipedia rule says so. Or should we deleted the category since it is redundant with this list? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lists and categories each have different strengths and weaknesses, and are complementary. For example, if someone knows the name of a mall and wants to check where it is, using categories they might have to check lots of individual sub-categories where a simple search on a list will find it. Also, lists allow us to include notable entries that don't have their own articles yet. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an inappropriately repeated nomination--the two most recent AfDs were keep--them most recent one by SNOW. The earlier ones were no consensus, but it certainly looks like the consensus has clarified. to renominate after a snow keep seems a rather unusual thing to do. The present list is the opposite of INDISCRIMINATE--essentially every article on it has a Wikipedia article, and most of the non-notable US malls in Wikipedia have been deleted some time ago--I helped get the standards tightened for that--this is an area where I am firmly selective, not inclusive. It's time to explicitly state what I would think obvious: if subjects are notable enough to warrant Wikipedia articles, a list of them is not indiscriminate——notability is the way we discriminate. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as a means of grouping notable malls by location. This is exactly what lists are for and consensus for retention of such lists has been consistent. Alansohn (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. Per Boing.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Bahrain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another unmaintainable and unencyclopedic list with no sources. --Divebomb is not British 19:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well ----Divebomb is not British 20:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per these lists are prone to OR and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few entries in the list are notable enough for inclusion, and the categories are sufficient in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -

the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
— WP:NOTGUIDE

NotARealWord (talk) 15:30, 28 November 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep n order to help develop the articles. In a part of the world we find very difficult to work with, a list with a considerable number of redlinked malls or redlinks like this can be justified; I expect some will be found non-notable and deleted--& fwiw, most of my opinions at AfD for individual malls have been delete. I think NOT INDISCRIMINATE is an important requirement to be an encyclopedia rather than a mere web directory. But this list when developed will not be indiscriminate. (Recognizing that this grouped nomination covers articles of a very different nature, I'm checking each one and writing what is appropriate for the specific case.) DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping centres in Norway[edit]

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

These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and prone to OR. Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Divebomb is not British 19:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well. ----Divebomb is not British 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per these lists are prone to OR and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why aren't all these identical nominations being done in the manner of an umbrella nomination? __meco (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Because I'm not sure how to start one? ----Divebomb is not British 14:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. See my arguments elsewhere in multiple AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your arguments fail to address the fact that it is impossible to list every single shopping centre or mall in any country. ----Divebomb is not British 19:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be impossible? I am not sure how an effort at writing something is impossible. I would think that it would be impossible to list everyone who lives in my town, yet every few years I get an an unwanted yellow book thrown into my driveway that does just that, and they even throw in a coupon for 10% off of sushi for a place down the street. Are we running out of words to describe things? How many malls can their be in Singapore? And anyway, Wikipedia only has articles on notable shopping centers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP only has articles on notable shopping centers? It certainly doesn't seem that way: I looked at a few on that list and found stubs with no apparent notability or sourcing. ----Divebomb is not British 08:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In support of the comment directly above this one, I point to Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. NotARealWord (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -

the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
— WP:NOTGUIDE

NotARealWord (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "hotel or venue, etc". should include any type of commercial centre or tourist spot. Thus, I'm sure we shouldn't have these kinds of lists. NotARealWord (talk) 17:51, 30 November 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list does not " include every tourist attraction, etc. " Rather, it contains ones notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The relatively few red links need to be checked to see if they are also, & probably not all will be (I generally vote !delete on small malls, and some of these look a little dubious, or at least they would in the US, but the standard is not the same from country to country. I don't think we should have indiscriminate lists, and I certainly don't think we should have articles on non-notable shopping centres. But this list is already well on its way to being properly discriminating, though some further work is needed. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep going by the number of blue-links, it seems that most shopping centers are notable. Almost every new shopping center creates a large local debate, so I'm pretty sure nearly all the shopping centers are notable. Per WP:LIST, it is acceptable to create lists which have a minimum degree of notability or a cut-off point (for instance 20 or 50 stores). Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying that the malls are notable just because they have an article here? Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. NotARealWord (talk) 17:34, 8 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) 20:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping centres in Australia[edit]

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

These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and prone to OR. Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Divebomb is not British 19:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well ----Divebomb is not British 20:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per these lists are prone to OR and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of shopping centres in Australia by size has a higher OR and also POV then List of shopping centres in Australia. I also don't see how the list is a "travel guide", travel guides normally tell you were to visit and the address (not just the town/city it is in) rather being a list? I'm not a huge fan of lists (categories are better suited) but I'm not yet convinced to support the deletion. Bidgee (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few entries in the list are notable enough for inclusion, and the categories are sufficient in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's sufficient to have List of shopping centres in Australia by size. St Anselm (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 10:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -

the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc.
— WP:NOTGUIDE

NotARealWord (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that quote - could you possibly explain? Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just check the link, "hotel or venue, etc". should include any type of commercial centre or tourist spot. thus, i'm sure we shouldn't have these kinds of lists. NotARealWord (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a list of "hotels or venues", it's a list of shopping malls, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with tourist guides - what is it that makes you think it's a tourist guide? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are going to apply WP:NOTGUIDE, then most lists (such as the list of National Parks, lists of buildings) would be deleted. While I dislike lists common-sense is that the lists are not tourist guides but are lists of notable locations which don't have any street address or phone numbers in the list (e.g. List of shopping centres in Australia) and are far more safer from WP:POV then List of shopping centres in Australia by size (which most of the Gross Leasable Areas is most likely entered by POV-pushers who think their local shopping centre is bigger then another) which is full of POV and WP:OR. Bidgee (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

I don't see why WP:NOTTRAVEL applies. Now, if the articles [I'm going to rip off NOTTRAVEL here, so go read it first] started listing the price of a cafe au lait at Gloria Jean's or the telephone number of the Myer outlet there, then yes, those would violate NOTTRAVEL, but that is not what is alleged to have occurred. Per Zebedee above, what does travel have to do with this?
Second, I don't see anything particularly OR'ish about listing shopping centres. The prohibition on OR is a widely misunderstood rule, and I don't see how OR applies to a list of shopping centres. At any rate, OR is not a rationale for deletion of an article, it's only a rationale for the deletion of the originally-researched content.
Third, I don't see why it's particularly unmaintainable - it's a list of shopping centres. How often do shopping centres open or close?
Fourth, if the existence of a shopping centre is encyclopedic, then I don't see how a list of them could be unencyclopedic.

I'd be open to merging this article with List of shopping centres in Australia by size.

Categories aren't a perfect substitute for lists. Cats just lump together articles, in a list article you can do stuff like sort entries - the size article, for examples, sorts centres two ways: by lettable area and by number of stores; you can't do that with categories. Miracle Pen (talk) 13:06, 3 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list does not " include every tourist attraction, etc. " Rather, it contains ones notable enough for Wikipedia articles. The relatively few red links need to be checked to see if they are also, & probably not all will be. I don't think we should have indiscriminate lists, and I certainly don't think we should have articles on non-notable shopping malls. But this list is already well on its way to being properly discriminating, though some further work in the area is needed. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 5 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 Mandsford 02:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of out-of-town shopping centres in the United Kingdom[edit]

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

These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and prone to OR. Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Divebomb is not British 19:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Romania[edit]

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

These kinds of lists are unmaintainable and prone to OR. Also Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Divebomb is not British 19:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, please see the following AFDs

as well ----Divebomb is not British 20:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, unless we adopt a "delete one, delete all" with this topic, the precedent has already been set. What about the List_of_shopping_centres_in_the_United_Kingdom? Eddie.willers (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per these lists are prone to OR and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few entries in the list are notable enough for inclusion, and the categories are sufficient in this case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep. This is useful info, worthy of project inclusion. It is a simple list. There is coverage of these malls. NOT A TRAVEL GUIDE does not apply here.Turqoise127 04:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there is coverage of more than a few of these malls, why is it not included in the list? Your rationale is dubious. ----Divebomb is not British 16:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so dubious, considering the several keeps that followed...Turqoise 127 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those keeps were cross-posted to all the AFDs. And you have yet to provide any evidence for your claim. ----Divebomb is not British 08:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I count 27 entries in the list with their own articles (after I redlinked several that were linked to the wrong articles), and a further 57 with references, and that looks like pretty reasonable coverage to me. I haven't actually checked the references of the redlinked ones, and they need to be turned into proper refs - I'll be happy to do that if the article survives this AfD. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But how many refs are actually up to snuff? This is like the uBLP debate: we should be exterminating the ones that are badly sourced, not the ones that are unsourced. ----Divebomb is not British 12:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I agree that the refs all need to be checked and unverifiable entries should ultimately be removed, but I think that's a maintenance issue rather than a reason to delete the article. I think the 27 entries with their own articles show sufficient coverage to keep the list, and we can work on maintenance later if it is kept. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined list of a notable topic. EVERY article has the potential to be unmaintainable and prone to OR - AfD is not for cleanup. Lists and categories go hand-in-hand per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Adding same comment to all articles above). I've read the arguments for deletion, for this and all the other articles listed above, and I don't see any valid policy-based reasons for deletion. Open to OR? All articles are, and if there is any actual OR, we should improve or remove it rather than delete the article. Unencyclopedic? See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Just unencyclopedic. Unmaintainable? Maybe it will never be completely up to date, but no article will ever be - and a number of these articles appear to be getting updated fairly regularly. Unreferenced? If the individual entries are bluelinked, then their own articles will have references, so those don't necessarily need additional references in the list article (and if you think they do, just copy one across). Genuinely unreferenced entries should be referenced if possible, or marked {{cn}} and given some time before possibly being removed. But this is all cleanup, and that's not what AfD is for - you don't delete articles just because some content is unreferenced. Tourist guide? There's nothing "tourist guide" about any of them - "tourist guide" refers to prices, recommendations, directions, promotional wording, etc. These are just geographic-based lists, which are applicable to anyone rather than specifically tourists, and if we deleted everything that's geographic we'd have nothing left - everything is somewhere. Some are too short to be needed as a list and a category will suffice? Well, all lists start off short - and there are distinct advantages and disadvantages of both lists and categories, and previous discussions have always failed to gain a consensus of one over the other. At least some of these articles are lists of things that are sufficiently notable to have their own articles, and they just provide a collection of links to them - and that's one of the things that list articles are for, as a complement to categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete; I think Boing! said Zebedee! made some very good points (I'm puzzled by the mention of WP:TRAVELGUIDE which is irrelevant imho) but I think the list is wildly unmanageable and not really notable itself. If individual malls are notable, feel free to write articles about those malls (and put them in a category). I would support an article which is more prose than list, if it drew on independent sources to discuss malls in Romania more generally. bobrayner (talk) 03:23, 3 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, /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as per WP:AOAL. Aeonx (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in order to help develop the articles. In a part of the world we find relatively difficult to work with, a list with a considerable number of red links like this can be justified, especially as the articles seem to be in the process of being worked on progressively. I expect some of the few red links will be found non-notable and deleted--& fwiw, most of my opinions at AfD for individual malls have been delete DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mixing a 6th AfD nomination with new nomination and a bunch of 2nd nominations is never a good idea since they are not similarly situated. Essentially, the nomination is asking us to make process that agrees that List of shopping malls in any location has no place within Wikipedia. This, I cannot do. For future reference, here is some information on the topic:

List of shopping mall etc. lists deletion discussions

List of current shopping mall etc. list articles

You also can find such lists in user space here. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:20, 12 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. closing as delete , keeping in mind the discussion at AN/I http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=401681122. The consensus is quite clear; additional I double checked in WorldCat and Karlsruhe Virtual Catalogue, the union catalog for European university and national libraries, and found almost no holdings. Whether the other material is notable would, as was commented at the AfD, depend upon some exact citations, but on the face of it it appears unlikely. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kühntopf[edit]

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

This discussion has been blanked to prevent its contents being indexed by search engines. The discussion is available in the page history.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Ozveren[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Trivial sources given that establish he exists but not notability. Only things I can find on google are similarly trivial. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 12:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 20 November 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) 01:05, 27 November 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) 01:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I rechecked sources listed and I dont see anywhere near enough to pass WP:BIO. No real pages out there talking about his concerts except where another notable was in the same concert, so not gonna pass WP:CREATIVE Wolfstorm000 (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Moreu[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP on person who wrote two movies; can't find any independent sources directly on him. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may fall short of notability requirements as a screenwriter, but he's definitely mentioned in reliable sources, quoted in at least one [54] that I was able to find easily. His IMDB bio is extensive, but I'm not sure that's RS in this case. Yakushima (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 20 November 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) 01:09, 27 November 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) 01:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep for a screenwriter, two movies ins a little on the low side for notability here, but one of them Hackers (film) was a significant film--even the Wikipedia article on the film includes good 3rd party RS references to his role specifically as script writer,with usable quotations--though not all of them were particularly flattering. DGG ( talk ) 06:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The result was keep. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Furlong[edit]

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

Not finding any reliable sources that discuss either her or her books. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how notable this makes here but she has 5 books listed at Amazon.ca.--Johnsemlak (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 20 November 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) 01:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep; I found a review of one of her works in The Globe and Mail, something she contributed to in the San Jose Mercury News, a note of her appearance at a panel in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and a listing of one of her works in the top 20 bestsellers in The Vancouver Sun. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 27 November 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) 01:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Keep; Disclaimer: I know this author personally. Nicola has 8 (print) published fiction works, teaches crime fiction writing at a college (and published a related guide), and teaches and writes about new publishing trends. Perhaps most notable is her venture into multimedia storytelling (called a "Quillr", trademarked), which the Globe and Mail article references, and which is a finalist for a 2011 EPIC Award. A number of references are not online (including an article by David Pogue, if I recall). I'm willing to give a shot at expanding the article, if it seems appropriate. --AddledMe (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very much to my surprise, the books are widely held in libraries. [55] --WorldCat shows hundreds of hits, and for Christian fiction is quite on the high side, as most libraries collecting this do not contribute holdings to WorldCat. I had expected to see only the customary half-dozen for niche fiction!

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eminotebook[edit]

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

Not notable; seems WP:MADEUP. A search for sources finds nothing at all. Contested PROD, and the editor who nominated the article for PROD also tried to find sources without any result. bonadea contributions talk 14:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —bonadea contributions talk 19:24, 27 November 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) 01:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, invented, non-notable even if genuine. Hairhorn (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedily. Fails WP:V and falls well short of indicating why it should be included in an encyclopedia. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:57, 5 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our Great Globe[edit]

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

A recently released board game. No attempt to assert notability. I can not find any secondary sources online. wp:gng. Contested prod. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 27 November 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) 01:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find any sources either [56]. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grenade Gloves[edit]

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

Not notable. Marcus Qwertyus 15:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 15:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 15:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 15:22, 27 November 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) 01:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable company. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Danny Kass. There is entirely insufficent coverage in independent third party sources to establish notability. Some content is worth keeping and can be integrated into the article on one of the brothers. _wjemather ^bigissue 19:36, 4 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, I found sources and he has competed in three different World Championships. Geschichte (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Baker (runner)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable athlete. This article was prodded for deletion on 13 March 2009, but the prod was removed on 18 March 2009 on the grounds that a "University head coach is notable". Now this may be true, but I have searched Wikipedia and cannot substantiate this. What we have here is the head coach of a university (i.e. a glorified PE teacher) who has NOT been in the 1996 Olympics and as far as I can tell (and I confess to not being a sports or athletics expert) totally fails to meet the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notabilty (sports). Perhaps wiser counsel may give an opinion on this guy's notabily. Emeraude (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete the fact that he won an NCAA individual championship gives him some notability, but there's not enough else there for me to say it's enough. -Drdisque (talk) 19:58, 29 November 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) 01:30, 4 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ura Koyama[edit]

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

Nonnotable supercentenarian without reliable sources. See WT:WOP#Common deletion outcomes. More as needed. JJB 23:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was Japan's oldest person, and 114 is rare even among supercentenarians. Longevitydude (talk) 19:37, 2 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) 01:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Longevitydude. --Nick Ornstein (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More thorough discussion: Not sure why this was relisted. This is a 4-sentence article, 1.5 sentences of which come from its only source, a 6-sentence article in a Memphis paper (2 about Ura Koyama, 1 about Minagawa, and 3 about Japanese longevity generally). The remainder is original research derived from the only external link (OHB) and probably from (and at) the GRG, both of which are not reliable secondary sources. There are no responses arguing against this clear WP:GNG failure, but only against my attempt to identify common outcomes (which should have been linked from nom, fixed now) by proposing alternate inherent-notability criteria without discussing them at that link, the appropriate place; nor has there been any attempt to improve the article, or indeed indication that that is possible. This is an ex-parrot! JJB 01:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Delete Half the article was about Yone Minagawa. I've deleted that part, leaving Minagowa's blue-linked name and relation to Koyama in the article's text. What remains is a source and an external link. Here's what the source says, in its entirety:

"Japan's oldest woman, 114-year-old Ura Koyama, died of pneumonia at a hospital in southern Japan, an official said Tuesday.

Koyama died Tuesday in Iizuka City, where she had been hospitalized, according to Akemi Hiromoto, a city official. Japan's oldest person is now Yone Minagawa, 112-year-old in Fukuoka, born on Jan. 4, 1893, according to the Health Ministry.

Japan ranks among nations with the world's longest life spans. In 2003, Japanese women set a new record for life expectancy, at 85.3 years, while men could expect to live 78.3 years.

Experts say a traditional fish-based, low-fat diet may be Japan's secret to long life."

Only the first two sentences are about Koyama, and they disclose nothing notable.

The external link is to a Louis Epstein's self-published web page. That's not a reliable sources as that term is defined for en.wikipedia. It's either a primary source, WP:NOR, or unverifiable WP:V. Delete, per JJB and his parrot.David in DC (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parrot wasn't actually voting, it was just pining for the fjords. No sockparrotry here! JJB 04:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Delete Only source in article covers two sentences about Koyama, which is not substantial coverage. Inclusion in lists is fine. Neptune5000 (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge.::www.recordholders.org is NOT a self-published page. It's published in Germany and Louis lives in New York. That is just typical, DavidinDC, of the callous remarks that you and JJ have been making.

Also, in 2007 it was decided that supercentenarian bios that could not stand alone should be merged into the "list of" pages. Unfortunately, too many people here just think the options are keep or delete, when "merge" would be acceptable.

In reality, this article could be expanded and well-sourced, should someone take the time to do so. Having been Japan's oldest person from 2003 to 2005, that doesn't fit the definition of "one event," and multiple sources are available.

It is, of course, incumbent upon the article creators to make an article that might be able to stand alone. The article in the present state is "out of shape," but that doesn't mean that Ura Koyama doesn't deserve more than just a name in a list.Ryoung122 05:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the first three lines of text on the page in question:

"The Oldest Human Beings

These statistics were provided by Louis Epstein. Comments and corrections are welcome.

Latest update: December 3, 2010"

Something called www.recordholders.org is hosting data provided by someone named Louis Epstein, with the disclaimer that "comments and corrections are welcome." I'll assume good faith that you actually know the seperate locations of the web site provider and the statistics provider, but I'm not sure what point it proves. Louis Epstein may be well-known to you, but we need something he published in a reliable source. Not something he caused to be published on a "record holder" website. David in DC (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, David, I don't understand why Ryoung122 doesn't just take this two-week period to perform the merge himself (as if there's anything sourceable to merge at this point: what, cause of death?), or add the sources himself, or both; COI doesn't prohibit useful edits. I also don't understand why he isn't sensitive to his creation of talk chaos, such as staking out a position prior to Neptune5000 who was here earlier, which I have now corrected. JJB 20:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Digression: I really need to add R's edit here to the ArbCom case, because it simultaneously demonstrates creation of talk chaos, misreading of WP:SELFPUB, accusations against two others who do understand that policy, potentially digressive info (perhaps more on that later), explicit shifting of WP:BURDEN to "article creators" as if R, a keep proponent, has no collaborative duty to back his !vote with sources, and unsourced original research about how long the subject was the oldest national. Quite a lot in one go. Anyway, the prior paragraph lays out some good options for R if he's interested. JJB 20:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

JJ, you don't see that YOU are the problem...from intimidating Neptune5000 and deleting his article on Nyleptha Roberts, now you have convinced him that article length is the reason that Ura Koyama is not notable? Because the Nyleptha article surely was a lot longer and if it got deleted, then this must go too? That's faulty logic. If you write a long essay on your grandmother, it doesn't make her notable. What makes Ura Koyama notable is that she was RECOGNIZED by outside reliable sources as Japan's oldest person for a period of almost two years. These sources exist, and it wouldn't be that difficult for you to constructively add them instead of nominating everything for deletion. Further, if the problem is lack of sources, Wiki policies say you should first notify the article creator and give them a month to source it...not nominate it for deletion right away.

A lot of people are busy with real lives and don't have time to police your misbehavior 24 hours a day, but it should be clear to most that your editing is detrimental to Wikipedia because you don't follow policy, you attempt to make your own opinion into policy, and then you try to delete everything (tear down) rather than attempt to be constructive and "build up". There is a difference between pruning a tree and chopping down a tree. How can you say that the world's oldest person, Maud Farris-Luse, is not notable? Notability of world's oldest persons was established by media coverage long before Wikipedia existed. While coverage may be sparse for cases from the 1960s and 1970s, since circa 1986 media coverage and even book coverage of oldest persons has been substantial, continuing, and will continue.

Ryoung122 01:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please keep your multiparagraph comments all at the same indent level so I don't keep correcting them? Would you please diff when I intimidated Neptue5000, since I didn't propose Nyleptha for deletion, David did? Would you please diff when you think I argued that "Because the Nyleptha article surely was a lot longer and if it got deleted, then this must go too" (Nyleptha was deleted due to the same number of reliable sources as this article: one, a patent WP:GNG failure)? Would you please add the sources you seem to know about to the article? Do you think it's my job to know what your sources are and to add them? Would you mind linking those plural policies that say I "should" both notify and give a month to source (that would be a fun one for me to read)? Would you mind quoting a policy I don't follow and diffing where I don't follow it (after all, I've been doing that for you at ArbCom), or diffing where I try to make my own opinion into policy (rather than WikiProject guidance)? To answer your unrelated question about Maud, the fact is that before I came to this subject not all "world's first-oldest living recognized GWR-verified people" (or whatever) had articles, so they were not all notable, so deleting another one for WP:GNG failure makes no difference: frankly, it seems that to you everything is a tree trunk, because when have you ever argued clearly for a delete? Media do not create inherent notability, sorry, although you could argue that at the WP:WOP link I first gave; but, if they do, why don't you source them? JJB 03:50, 9 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Montana (musician)

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

The result was already deleted. 04:28, 6 December 2010 Neutrality (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Li Chaw Wet" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Li Chaw Wet) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Li Chaw Wet[edit]

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

Not sure what to do about this one. It's an obscure Asian script. Versions of the article have been deleted with the title Chicken scratch alphabet, and this one is tagged as a hoax, but I was able to find a couple of references to it under the name "Li hsau wai". (The article as written would have to be re-done anyway because it does not reflect what is in the sources.)

Because it is so obscure I don't know if it is even notable enough for an article; on the other hand I wouldn't like to see it deleted as a hoax when it might not be. ... discospinster _talk 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also found an old article that refers to Pwo Karen as having a script that looks like "the scratchings of a chicken on the ground".[57] ... discospinster _talk 03:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put it for sd as previously deleted after doing a quick search and finding mostly a type of embroidery I had never heard of. Today, I find this [58] which refers to examples of Karen writing surviving fairly late but not being translatable. What I would like to know is where the illustration comes from. It is to my mind a scan of a book page, and a rather arty book at that. It isn't the sort of page to come from a work on obscure scripts. This rather casts doubts in my mind about the correctness of its application in this article. The origin is given as 'own work', but no-one would put the amount of work involved in producing this just to use it as an article illustration here. It looks to me to be in more than one colour in the original. As to the script, in the version shown it is a pen script. It would be impossible to use on palm leaves, and rather difficult to carve or engrave. The Rev. Alonso Bunker copied writing from an engraved gold plate in 1870, according to the source above. How much gold was available to a people mostly practising slash and burn agriculture, I couldn't say. They are noted for making bronze drums, however. I've also found 'Lei Tjaung Hwei' or 'Lei Gwae Gau' in [59] so I would say it is definitely not a hoax on the part of the creator of the article. There are political considerations referred to in this source. Researching this subject is hindered by the embroidery, the differing forms of transliteration, and the number of persons named Karen who have had something to do with a chicken. Peridon (talk) 14:37, 4 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 per CSD G7 as the author and provider of the only substantial content blanked the article, assumed to be a request for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fractal causation[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, zero hits in Google scholar. Appears to be an attempt at self-promotion by a student. References that I can see do not use this term or mention the person credited as originating it (not counting the one primary source, which is an unpublished student paper). At least one ref is too old to even have mentioned fractals. Not notable or verifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity self-promotion. (Forgive my meanness here, but really an Oxford grad student should know better.) Oh yeah: don't forget to spike Fractal causality. EEng (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 4 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 12:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of army size by country[edit]

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

delete interesting list. but I don't see how it can fit in a table with armies for every country of the world and for every year (or decade); it's not meneageable. Melaen (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete I thought we already had something like this. Why then do we need another one? WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • simplicity • lost • defense • attack) 01:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect this is likely duplicative of other, better presented, content (see Category:Military lists). This could either be deleted as such or redirected to the list that best fits the title description. Them From Space 02:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect Very unwell written article, but can be improved after some research, although you could always redirect it to what Themfromspace suggested. --Ultrablastic123 (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC) - user was blocked for being a sock puppet. Mathewignash (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of countries by number of troops, which seems the closest fit. Keresaspa (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Rewrite The difference between this and List of countries by number of troops is that this historical - merge the two and you cause the need for a major revision to take into account the size of the armies listed over time. The title of this article should be changed to reflect its historical scope and a rationale for its odd geographical and historical limits provided, plus at least some idea of where the information comes from. If this isn't done delete as this random information isn't encyclopedic.Monstrelet (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Improve per Monstrelet's arguments. It is not an unmanageably large project assuming it is only going to focus on major European powers during a limited time period, but it needs some explanatory text and a more descriptive name. It can then be linked from other articles concerning the military history of the period. Barnabypage (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow. This is really a database, not an article. Interesting concept however. BTW I am sure that China had a far larger army than any European country in the 1400s to 1600s, which for some reason is the only time and place covered. Getting acurate numbers would also be a problem. Anyway not a bad idea but way beyond the scope of WP or any encyclopedia. Probably should be its own project. Maybe some university could sponsor. Borock (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not even worth trying to salvage. The author seemingly didn't care to even attempt to complete the list, so throw it away. It's amazingly redundant to other articles, and doesn't cite any sources. I'd be willing to accept a redirect to List of countries by number of troops, as mit may be a valid search term. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant. Anotherclown (talk) 07:56, 6 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colfax (band)[edit]

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

delete I didn't found evidence of enough notability. Melaen (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete It seems like it might qualify inclusion under criteria 4 for WP:NBAND, but the sourcing for a national tour, as well as for the article as a whole seems pretty thin. The only substantial coverage is a single article in a highly local paper. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems, as Melaen states: little evidence of notability - or credibility for that matter. Sources are local articles or small time press. Label even plays down the "success" boasted of in this article. Calling them green, inexperienced, and stating they are not road-weary veterans (drummer is only 16).

Added more sources from different provinces. Each article also references other information on this page.Staplesmcjebus (talk) 15:03, 9 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) 01:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Korkomaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST, cant find any significant coverage. Festivals listed don't have articles. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:01, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Aeonx (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, fails WP:ARTIST. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. That the sourcable festivals do not have Wikipedia articles is of far less concern than that the artist himself having no coverage in RS. Fails WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 5 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.