Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 20

< 19 January	21 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Few reliable sources discussing this term: most of the article was unsourced original research. Only three live sources currently in the article, of which only two actually use the term - and these are merely examples of use, not a discussion of the term itself. The first source provided as an example of use is hardly notable; a newsletter from the Village of Cottage Grove, Wisconsin (population 4,059). The second source provided as an example of use isn't clearly an example of its use as a distinct term. An additional source mentioned on the AfD as once being in the article, but no longer there, is http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49406, which also doesn't use the term "Spring Holiday". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Holiday[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. No relevant google hits for "spring holiday" or easter controversy." EeepEeep (talk) 00:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks to me like the article was created just to stir up the (otherwise nonexistent) controversy it claims to describe. How could Christians be opposed to something they've never heard of? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know that schools now give "winter vacation" and "spring break" when they used to give Christmas and Easter vacations. However I have never heard of "Spring Holiday", besides which Easter is on a Sunday so no holiday needs to be given. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as creator of this article. I created this article, and I support its deletion. It seems that although it may have been notable at the time I created it (in 2006), it appears to no longer be relevant or notable. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 02:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've never heard of an "Easter vacation," it's always been spring break. And never "Spring Holiday." I tried to fix the article, but I couldn't find any sources to corroborate what it was trying to say. EeepEeep (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My memory goes back to the 1960s. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Easter. The previous AfD (in which I !voted "reluctant keep") was unanimous that the article should remain. The sources addressing the controversy, that existed and prompted the keeping of the article in 2006, have not magically disappeared. Notability is not temporary. That said, a couple of lines in Easter about the euphemistic use of the phrase "Spring Holiday" and notable objections thereto would be entirely appropriate, along with a redirect from this title to the appropriate section. Powers ^T 13:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, the sources have disappeared. Most of the refs and links in the article were dead links. For the most part they were examples of usage, not references describing the alleged controversy, making the article original research. I agree notability is not temporary; in this case the topic was never notable. EeepEeep (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - We still have [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49406] which was removed from the article for some reason, and [1] which is still referenced. Powers ^T 14:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 16:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just redirect to Easter. This seems to be one of those politically correct secularisms, as bad as "winterval" for Christmas and other festivals near the winter solstice. If you said "Spring holiday" to me as an Englishman, I would probably have thought you meant "spring bank holiday" (which comes at the end of May) and replaced the variably-dated Whitsun bank holiday. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as disambiguation page. It may have a number of meanings. --Pink Bull 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to Spring break. For all it's worth, if someone said "Spring Holiday" to me, I would probably think they meant "spring break" or "spring vacation".—Sandahl (♀) 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not and never was a notable controversy. It was invented to support a particular POV.Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groove Stain[edit]

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

Contested prod. Band whose notability is asserted but not established by third-party reliable sources. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find significant coverage either, just a few notices of gigs in the news. Although I did like this line from the article: "it became evident that some of the performing members were more serious about pursuing the band as a career than others. Patterson and Hatton went to sharpen their music education at the Atlanta Institute of Music, while Pope and Etheridge attended the University of West Georgia." Oh, snap! Glenfarclas (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's a clear lack of consensus to do anything in particular here. A merge may be appropriate with some trimming - this can be undertaken through normal editing if agreed. ~ mazca ^talk 21:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Buses[edit]

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

Corporate entity that has no apparent notability. Doesn't appear to me to warrant an independent article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those references would warrant a merge/redirect to West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see how this meets WP:COMPANY. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive per Eastmain and Blanchardb.--Pink Bull 05:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain. Article is too long to justify a merge. (Search for "Central Buses" in the target article to understand why.) Only options are keep or delete. I like the references and I think it's notable so I say keep. Chutznik (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure for both AfDs. Warrah (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purplera1n[edit]

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

Contested prod. Hackware with no assertion of notability; only reference is a blog. Also, reads like an instruction manual. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Blackra1n (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep Purplera1n per [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the second article also per [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. Joe Chill (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per sources found by Joe Chill, which include CNet, Wired (magazine), Techtree, etc. Pcap ping 08:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep great job Joe Chill. I will make an effort sometime to make the articles more suitable for an encyclopedia. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per the sheer number of high level references. Justin Ormont (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references are enough and notable enough publications. MrMacMan^Talk 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin close this? It's clear that this article will be kept. Girafe53 (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 06:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Preston, Viscountess Gormanston[edit]

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

Not notable. She is related to a famous actor by birth and to a minor peer by marriage, neither of which confers notability on her. No significant coverage found. Michig (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need for seperate article on this person. RadManCF (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, as per above. Viridae ^Talk 00:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Edward Fox, her father's page. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She seems to be a full-time socialite, but there is enough media coverage of her at this search to make me think she's notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see anything in those results that constitutes significant coverage, although of course if you can point out a couple that do I'll be happy to reconsider. The sources in the article tell us who her family is and that she attended a memorial service, and nothing more as far as I can see.--Michig (talk) 07:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unit Anode 03:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nobility is not automatically notability. I don't see enough for notability (which requires discussion of the topic, not just mention) in the links provided above by Eastmain. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject simply is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Avatar 2 (film)[edit]

The result was deleted as likely copyright violation

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

Appears to be speculation and content copied from the Avatar (2009 film) page.

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and as far as I can see WP:OR RWJP (talk) 22:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already deleted it as "fancruft" and a possible copyright violation. No really relevant Google hits for "Avatar 2" beyond casual speculation. The AfD header is on top of a blank page; it looks like we both caught it at the same time. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. A previous (non-admin) closure resulted in a "keep," but there are valid delete comments here so "no consensus" seems a more accurate close, though the effect is the same in the end. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ManhattanitesTheMovie[edit]

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

Unremarkable independent film. Fails WP:GNG. Prod removed by obvious sock of article creator (who also tried spamming his website here). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Film's correct title is simply Manhattanites. More comprehensive searches might include search parameters using production and cast. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't this [12] count as enough coverage? Its what showed up when I hit the Google news search up top. More could certainly be found, but I think that review is enough. Dream Focus 19:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Profiled in a major film news outlet.--Pink Bull 01:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and recommend closure. It's very substantially improved from version as of deletion nomination, and the outside review establishes notability. Chutznik (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs multiple sources, not just one. Joe Chill (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - The film obviously exists but what it needs is one strong review from a recognised permanent source such as a print media - and I haven't been able to find one. The web sources are blogs which are generally not acceptable arguments for notability.--Kudpung (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Renaissance Trains. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humber Coast and City Railway[edit]

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

Proposal for a railway company that does not appear to be going ahead Simply south (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Renaissance Trains. This proposal seems to have died and it can be adequately covered in the Renaissance Trains article. Adambro (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep. Either merge to Renaissance Trains or keep. As the service has not been denied and there is large proof that they have applied for access rights. I think the best option would be to merge making Renaissance Trains article better than it is right now.Likelife (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "large proof that they have applied for access rights"? As far as I can tell no track access application or similar has been made. Adambro (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro, here is proof Renaissance Trains.com near the bottom of the page it says future access rights have been agreed. Likelife (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find a track access application or similar on the ORR website. The full quote from the RT website says "We have begun work to determine an optimal train service plan and have already held a briefing meeting with Network Rail and the structure and form of a future track access agreement has been agreed." I read that as saying that RT and NR have agreed what form a track access agreement should take. That doesn't in my view indicate either that a track access application has been made or accepted, merely that the company has discussed with NR what form such an agreement could take. Adambro (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. RadManCF (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge into renaissance trains.Shortfatlad (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Renaissance Trains. Website stated to be running by late 2008, it's now 2010. Mjroots (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others, and my proposed notability guidelines for British open-access train operating companies and proposed companies. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: precisely this subject was discussed last month here, where I proposed merging this into Renaissance Trains. Unfortunately I was too busy and never got around to doing it..... --RFBailey (talk) 01:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see also similar cases at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Great North Eastern Railway (Alliance Rail) (Result: Merge). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Looking at the target article, a merge would give disproportionate attention to this line over other lines. Chutznik (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep: Withdrawn by nom, after references were added to verify WP:MUSICBIO criterion. Mattg82 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

A+ (rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable performer. No coverage in third-party reliable sources. Article has been unsourced since its creation in 2005. SheepNotGoats (Talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice sources, although it's a shame it took five years and an AFD to get the article sourced. Can we SNOW keep this now, or withdraw it, or something? SheepNotGoats (Talk) 13:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple sources exist to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. For example, this Billboard article (and another), plus reviews at Allmusic (x2) and Vibe. Additionally, he has reached the U.S. album and singles charts, as well as the UK singles chart. ~~I'll incorporate these sources in the next few hours.~~ I've added these sources to the article. Gongshow ^Talk 22:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Gongshow. Joe Chill (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gong.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1989 The Right Stuff[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage for it either. If it exists then it's buried by the New Kids on the Block's 1989 single of the same name, which unfortunately is also its first track. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any in-depth coverage in reliable sources for this compilation album; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 07:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Sword of Truth universe[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on entirely in-universe fictional subject. I don't believe that there is enough verifiable real-world material to justify an article at this title. Any content that could be salvaged would better belong in other articles either Sword of Truth or the articles of the individual books. According to the talk page, most of the current content was merged from previously deleted articles. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

completely disagree... real world material "sword of truth books" 1-11 + "debt of bones"(a prequel which took place in this universe)and "Law of Nines"(which make refference to this universe whilst linking it to your own universe). All info in this article is relevent, and whilst it could be split up and put in the article belonging to the particular book it was taken from it is far more useful together. one shouldn't have to keep flicking between articles to read this obviously linked information. 122.57.0.252 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2010
Comment You may wish to read WP:Writing about fiction. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually I think the article might have real world content in the comparison of how the TV show Legend of the Seeker has seriously changed the construction of the universe. However, I suppose a merge to Sword of Truth would be appropriate but we would have to be careful to make sure the information focuses more on the series. Sadads (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written in a primarily in-universe style, this is the type of thing easily characterized as fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this sort of thing does not belong in an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates the in-universe plot sections of Sword of Truth 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree the article needs help the concept of the fictional "universe" having it's own article is well established for large fictional / epic book series. See Midkemia, Middle Earth, Andor (Wheel of Time), Discworld (world) and so on. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But those articles have sources establishing the notability of the fictional universe in the real world. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point but that at most warrants a prod to improve the article and provide additional sourcing. Being a best selling book series with a TV series based on your books (admittedly not the best adaptation ever) seems to meet / exceed the notability of Midkemia, Andor (Wheel of Time). Nefariousski (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no agreement on the need to establish notability of the parts of a fiction in the RW. It is appropriate to split a discussion like this from the main article, as a summary and combination article for the various topics. Attacks on such articles destroy the possibility of compromise on fiction topics. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is consensus on the need to establish such notability. Look at the guideline at WP:MOSFICT; it states: "Wikipedia contains numerous articles on fiction-related subjects, fictional worlds, and elements from them. When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources." I understand your pragmatic approach, DGG, but I don't think it excuses a lack of established notability for this subject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Nefariousski, DGG. Legitimate spinout article to keep main article from growing too long. An article needing improvement is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, but WP:NOT is. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:N. The article has no references to any sources at all, let alone reliable and independent sources, to support any of its content. This makes it unverifiable (possibly also WP:OR) and causes it to fail the general notability guideline. Sandstein 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources analyze the topic. Abductive (reasoning) 03:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In-universe. When there is already an article on each individual book and on the series of books I feel additional articles should require some secondary sources. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and when spin off articles are there just to describe at length the universe within the books with no secondary sources then this is becoming an issue of WP:NOT. I would consider deleting Midkemia as well even though I used it as the basis for a three year long game of D&D that I ran as a kid. Polargeo (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Just because the sources aren't on the page doesn't mean the sources don't exist. Saying unsourced = not notable is bad logic in my book. If someone created a page about the Queen of England but was too lazy to write it properly or source it it doesn't mean she fails WP:N. I do see logic for holding BLP to a higher standard but this is obviously not in that category. If being unsourced or poorly sourced is justification for deletion then prepare for one hell of a flood of entries to AFD. Here's my Suggestion. I just added a rescue tag. Give it a week and see what can be done to fix the article up and re-evaluate at that point. I personally tend to sway towards the deletionist side of the scale but with so many examples of similar long standing articles of fictional universes I find it hard to justify deletion. Nefariousski (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further CommentI added sources that back up the geography (links to maps etc...) and some of the historical background. There's still a lot more that needs to be done but at least the article is not in the realm of the unsourced anymore. Nefariousski (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still no sources independent of the subject though. Also, bare google books links are not very readable. You should probably use {{cite book}}. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something and if I am I'd love you to direct me to policy articles or MOS articles that clear this up but where does it say that in order for an article about a fictional universe to be notable it has to have some source that shows some sort of real world analysis, comparison or academic value? While I agree that it would be wonderful to have a section in the article / source that goes over such a concept I don't think not having it is reason for consideration for deletion. See Discworld (world), The growing consensus to for a Niven Ring article, Midkemia, Novindus, JRR Tolkien's Arda, Charn etc... all of which have no mention or reference independent of the subject. Nefariousski (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great Junction Street[edit]

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

Appears to be an average city street; not notable. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Coverage here: [13] Polarpanda (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantially expanded in Afd period. The street appears to be the start of the A901 road, but its article A901 road (Great Britain) is only a mere redirect to a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be an average drive-by nomination made without following the due diligence of our deletion process. I have expanded the article by reference to some of the numerous sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly assume good faith on the part of the nominator. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The street was the site of a triumphal arch which was constructed for the reception of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert in 1842." Google Book search for it and "triumphal arch" reveals some notable mention of it [14] for that prominent feature. Dream Focus 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonably detailed article with ample room for expansion. I added an image, but more are available. --DThomsen8 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reasonable road article with historical context adding notability. -- Banjeboi 07:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into World Pyro Olympics. This was a reasonable result because the event has not established its own notability but exists in the context of a notable series of competitions. Non-admin closure per my discretion. Chutznik (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines international pyromusical competition[edit]

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

Future event - no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Bizarre, but it's the Philippines (sorry, Honey), and it's about two months premature. Userfy? Bearian (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It fails WP:CRYSTAL for less than another month, why not leave it alone and see what happens? RadManCF (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps merge into World Pyro Olympics. --Pink Bull 05:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --kur ykh 00:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of provinces and states in North America[edit]

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

This only lists all of the states in the US, and not North America. Furthermore, it is redundant to the existing articles about the list of states in US, Canada and Mexico. JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Covered more coherently in other, more focused lists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reverting vandalism not spotted by the nominator, this appears to be a useful list (even though its utility may be limited to middle/elementary school students). Appears accurate and harmless. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Hullaballoo said. Accurate, harmless, and useful if someone stumbles upon it. Ginsengbomb (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - technically, the three Canadian territories (Nunavut, Yukon and Northwest Territories) are neither provinces nor states. Thus the title is inaccurate or the territories should be removed.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo and Ginsengbomb. Our core constituency, high school and college students, would use this. Bearian (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better covered in other existing articles and no interest to high school and college students in other parts of the world. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a poorly-defined list that is inferior to lists contained in the articles Provinces and territories of Canada, Political divisions of Mexico, and U.S. state. The list identifies its scope as including provinces and states, yet it includes the three territories of Canada, the Distrito Federal, and the District of Columbia. The "useful" argument is simply not convincing since anyone with the ability to find this list could just as easily search for and find the others. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Black Falcon and others. PK T(alk) 15:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to Provinces and territories of Canada, Political divisions of Mexico & USA#Political_divisions. Incomplete as it does not explain the differences between each nations idea of what a provinces or states is, which is explained in the respective Articles or sections. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I fear the precedent this could lead to ... list of States in Europe, List of States in the Superpowers, List of states in the worlds poorest nations. There is a tenuous link between these political divisions at best. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Simply duplicates info in other articles. Furthermore, even if expanded to include all of North America, the structure of political divisions differs from nation to nation. EeepEeep (talk) 03:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per eeepeeeps cogent point.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful article - all information is readily locatable elsewhere. Bazonka (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer (and his otters) DigitalC (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FastFormat[edit]

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

Also nominating:

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

I cannot find significant independent coverage for these software libraries.

FastFormat is mentioned in a book by its author, Wilson's Extended STL book (not available online), but only in passing on p. 53 where the Pantheios logging API is discussed, and another passing mention on p. 55 in the same context. The only in-depth coverage is in a two part article from Wilson in ACCU's journal Overload, which is still a primary source, even if not self-pub. There's another mention in google books here, but it's accidental, in the screenshot of Akregator. There are some blog entries about it too, but nothing else in WP:RS that I can find.

I'm also nominated VOLE for similar reasons: only a passing mention in Wilson's book, and the references are actually WP:SELFPUB in this case.

The creator of these articles, Special:Contributions/Jjcolotti seems to have significant WP:COI. He also created Wilson's bio, and the related articles on Pantheios, VOLE, and (based on the same day timestamp) likely Synesis Software too, which got deleted as A7. Pcap ping 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* I've rewritten my nomination because it was hard to follow. Pcap ping 10:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There seem to be a fairly large variety of different products that use the name Fastformat, but hardly anything I've seen in the first several pages of news, books, and scholar searches is unmistakably about these C++ libraries. Looking for VOLE is even harder: you'll find rodents, rodents, and more rodents. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 05:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EAS3[edit]

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

Reference review:

Official website- Reliable source, not independent of the subject.
Sourceforge- Reliable source, trivial.

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, per nomination. This is university developed software described as a software toolkit for reading and writing structured binary data with geometry information and for postprocessing of these data. It is meant to exchange floating-point data according to IEEE standard between different computers, to modify them or to convert them into other file formats. This doesn't seem to be a commercial product, and may be valuable and important, but I don't see any google scholar hits that are obviously relevant, and the article lacks sufficient context to explain any importance to the ordinary reader. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do find significant coverage in this article. However I have to admit that links to related file formats are missing. I'll change that in a second. EAS3 is one of the few file formats and computational libraries that enable you to read and write large binary data fiels, independent of the endianess of your machine. Therefore, it is as significant as CGNS and netCDF---even though it is roots are a little bit older i think. Concerning the Hits in Google scholar---you will always get hits unrelated to EAS3 because it's a three letter abbreviation you are searching for like "jpg". Anyway, nobody writes down in his publication which file format (eg. netCDF, CGNS, EAS3 or whatever) he or she has used to store his data or perform a Fourier analysis. Therefore, I think that google scholar hits are not relevant for a discussion about deleting this page. Marcus Zengl 19:02, 15. Jan 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep As mentioned by Marcus, you will hardly find references to used software within scientific publications (you may find at least some in this bunch of abbreviations if you include the word simulation [15]). However this is also the case for other file formats (CGNS, NETCDF, ...) and probably one wouldn't delete these - otherwise we wouldn't have many articles dealing with scientific software. Older verions of EAS were used for the first spatial Direct Numerical Simulations and the current version is used for example within benchmark codes of the PRACE project - so relevance is given. --Babucke (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: references (with the limitations described above) were mentioned and added to the article. --Babucke (talk) 10:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles about scientific software may not be of interest to many Wikipedia readers, but for those who need a particular kind of software, this article and articles like it are crucial for filling a need. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news, I search for its name plus the word "software". One promising result which Google says is a valid news source is [16] which has promising things to say of the software. Dream Focus 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: that article is referring to PowerBuilder Enterprise Application Server version 3, aka PowerBuilder EAS3. Not the same thing at all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just don't see how it passes WP:GNG. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kettlebowl[edit]

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

I'm not so sure this subject is notable. Its a hill with snow. Yes it has received minor coverage from its local town newspaper, but is that really sufficient to meet the notability bar? JBsupreme (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Places do have it easier than other subjects, as far as notability is concerned. But I agree, a local ski area with fewer than 4,000 patrons during a season? Seems thin. I'll dig around a bit later. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep It does seem to meet WP:GNG andWP:RS, but does seem trivial. RadManCF (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any problems with this article. It contains multiple reliable independent sources to prove it meets the general notability guideline - so what if they aren't the New York Times! It's written neutrally by an unbiased person. Why would it matter how many people visit it? It's not like ski hills in Wisconsin are open year around - maybe for a few months. I argue that any non-private ski hill with sufficient independent sources should be kept. Royal broil 04:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage is in-depth and from independent reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:GNG. Hills with snow can be notable just like anything else. --Oakshade (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felecia Lindsey-Howse[edit]

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

Nomination by User:98.248.32.44 (talk). Reason: Contested PROD. Completely unreferenced so there's nothing to verify. In addition to all of the research done by AndrewRT on the article talk page, there's no indication of how she is allegedly involved in her various musical endeavors. The fact that she's "confused as the woman who sings backup vocals" doesn't inspire confidence that she's notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider this a back up singer? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbVs1a_g9zs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.225.10 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC) reference http://www.amazon.com/Mo%27-Thugs/e/B000AQ1S3C/ref=s9_dpt_sa_bio —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.225.10 (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Neither one is even close to a reliable source, and even if they were there is no mention of her anywhere in them. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.43.96 (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon states on the music section Biography Mo Thugs Family is an all-star project featuring Bone Thugs-n-Harmony along with a variety of acts signed to the group's Mo Thugs Records. Besides Bone Thugs members Layzie Bone, Krayzie Bone, Wish Bone, and Flesh-n-Bone, the Mo Thugs Family includes II Tru, Poetic Hustla'z, MT5, and Felecia. The supergroup debuted in March 1997 with Mo Thugs Family Scriptures, which hit number two on the charts

http://www.amazon.com/Mo-Thugs-Family-Scriptures/dp/B000003C0E/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1264036854&sr=1-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.43.96 (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - YouTube, Amazon.com, and similar sites are not reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear that necessary independent sources exist Vartanza (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus below is that the expanded and sourced article demonstrates notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Burke[edit]

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

Two line stub on non-notable local councillor who has not held any statewide office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN: quitting your party to sit as an independent is not notable. Nothing substantive in reliable sources. Valenciano (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, fails WP:Politician. Recent updates may indicate notability. Snappy (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. If the subject is notable per WP:GNG, it's only for one event (resigning from Sinn Fein). Move to neutral per the sources provided. This may be a case where the subject passes WP:GNG, trumping WP:POLITICIAN. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Does seem to meet WP:GNG, and isn't very far from satisfying WP:POLITICIAN, IMO. RadManCF (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've added a few more details that may be of significance in deciding notability.Autarch (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Snappy.Red Hurley (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - added sources show that he was also involved in anti-drugs activism in Dublin in the 1980s (a major issue as inner-city Dublin had a serious heroin addiction problem) and that he was in jail for IRA membership.Autarch (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable politician with plenty of coverage in reliable secondary sources; see Google Books. Scolaire (talk) 11:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator is right that being a local councillor does not of itself constitute notability per WP:POLITICIAN. However, Burke has been an unusually high-profile councillor, for 25 years, so I'm not surprised to find that he has in fact been the subject of substantial coverage in mainstream media, which has now been added to the article. As such, he meets WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - local councillors are not often notable, but Burke has received substantial coverage in a variety of media for political activity. Warofdreams talk 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

V. Curtis Watkins[edit]

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

Non-notable autobiography. Credible assertions of notability (thus bypassing speedy delete) amount to co-founding a relatively small software company, garnering a local Chamber of Commerce award, and working on a local civic task force. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject still is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Minor characters of Days of our Lives. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conner Lockhart[edit]

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

unsourced article about non-notable past soap opera character. Rm994 (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN character. JBsupreme (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a suitable list with a redirect. Every named character in a soap opera with more than a bit part in a single episode should have at least a redirect, and I challenge the nominator to give a reason why that at least would not be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 22:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an appropriate character list. Edward321 (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A merge could certainly be appropriate. Perhaps to Minor characters of Days of our Lives. Rm994 (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Redirect Relevant info was already on Redemption Song and I added sources (NAC) CTJF83 chat 08:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption Song (Rihanna song)[edit]

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

Should be deleted with relevant information merged to Redemption Song (see Come Together, Twist and Shout for similar examples) ~DC _{Talk To Me} 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the merge, that's the standard. Can't be deleted if any material that needs attribution is copied over, per CC-BY-SA, so merge & redirect. Amalthea 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Redemption Song and redirect to the same (see also Hallelujah (Leonard Cohen song) - a cover of this was the 2008 Christmas No1 in the United Kingdom and doesn't have its own page). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as above - this is a satsuma, we wanted a football... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Redemption Song per Amalthea. Cover versions generally do not get their own articles unless the main article has size issues. –Chase (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, that's what's done in all similar situations. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jane Scott[edit]

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

unsourced BLP; multiple attempts at prod. Jack Merridew 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as unreferenced BLP. (unreferenced BLP articles should be a criteria for CSD) JBsupreme (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an easily surmountable problem: see [17]. But Delete because she doesn't appear to meet the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Holly25 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the nom. has been prodding a number of articles as "unreferenced BLP without checking them--even those with prizes that were already specified in the article--I have been checking some, & if they seem possibly worthwhile, adding the refs. & deprodding. Perhaps we should consider the mere assertion "unsourced" as a deletion reason to be not acceptable for listing a AfD, and insist on a statement of a valid deletion reason, such as unsourceable. (I have no comment here on this person's actually notability) DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass any of the notability guidelines, no reliable sources from which to cobble together a proper biography, and there's chance for great harm to be done with these unwatched and unmaintained blps.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced BLP with no notability. Viridae ^Talk 05:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails PORNBIO Hipocrite (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Purification This isn't Wikitonary (NAC) CTJF83 chat 08:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repurify[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. Article was originally created as a vehicle for a spamlink to an online beauty products store called Repurify. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Purification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Guy (Help!) 19:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Guy. It might not be a bad idea to Delete to remove the spam and shenanigans in the history; it's not critical, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JZG. smithers - talk 04:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lake Urmia (WP:NAC) CTJF83 chat 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kazem-Dashi[edit]

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

I don't see how this rock is notable. I redirected it to Lake Urmia but my redirection was redirected with an edit summary saying my edit was vandalism. Nice. :-) Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rock is a major tourist attraction in West Azarbaijan Province. You have blanked and redirected the article without discussion. Blanking is considered vandalism. :-) --Professional Assassin (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to blank to redirect, and you know I am sure that that isn't vandalism. But if it's notable, then there's no problem, just provide the evidence. I did look, but you may have sources I couldn't find. It would have helped if you'd added them before reverting the redirect, I did say in my edit summary it didn't appear notable. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'd already looked for sources for this rock and I can find no significant coverage. There is nothing to suggest that it is notable. Redirecting to the lake is the best thing to do. Professional Assassin's belief that a redirect is vandalism is very far off the mark. Fences&Windows 20:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lake Urmia - I just can't find any decent non-WP coverage, even under its Farsi title "کاظم‌داشی" [18]. I'll change my mind if someone can find anything substantial. --Oakshade (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems the best option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - a tourist attraction would show up in one of many tourism guidebooks. I cannot find any evidence that this is a notable tourist attraction that can support a stand alone article. - Whpq (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lake Urmia. Plvekamp (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 now per WP:SNOW. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Raven (musician)[edit]

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

non-notable session drummer. Ridernyc (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Impressive list of artists/bands that he's worked with, but I couldn't find any significant coverage discussing him at any length, so I'm inclined to Delete unless such coverage is forthcoming.--Michig (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 19:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm with Michig on this one; given that list, you'd think there would be more sources out there, and I'll take a swing at finding them later tonight. But, it's a BLP, and in the absence of sources, we should delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete unreferenced BLP (which should be a CSD criterion by now) JBsupreme (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all those who come before. Viridae ^Talk 05:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated. To be blunt, if the author doesn't care enough to show why he is notable, why should that burden be placed on everyone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable secondary sources adress this non-notable session drummer. Hipocrite (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let it snow! Drmies (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Gorman[edit]

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

Non-notable drummer, seems to be a fill in for a lot of bands but not notable on his own. Ridernyc (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sole cited reference is 404. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would suggest redirecting, but to which band? It may be best to keep this as a search result that links to the bands he has been in. The content is easily verified, e.g. [19], [20], [21], [22].--Michig (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

verifiable but not sure about notable. And as you have pointed out where do we redirect to. Ridernyc (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Guy. Viridae ^Talk 00:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Guy and nom. It should probably be speedied per the only source being a 404. Unit Anode 03:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not independently notable. If we really want to clean up, perhaps an admin with an eye for SNOW can come by this and similar AfDs. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BAND#6. [23] would be one of many sources trivially found. Hobit (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above assertion that Gorman meets WP:BAND criterion #6, as he "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." That establishes notability, and as Michig notes above it's verifiable that Gorman has been a member of these bands. Like Gina Mainwal, this makes more sense as a stub than as a redirect. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BAND #6, and I have added more references to the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep member of two or more notable groups. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CMSQLite[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable software with only a handful of Google hits and no coverage at all. Article is written by the author of the software. Prod has been contested twice with no reason given. Haakon (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In this case, I also cannot find independent coverage of the product. Only its own site and a non-moderated listing of PHP software. LotLE×talk 19:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Reliable Sources and WP:GNG. Plus, GNews returns 0 hits. - FaceMash (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many need to be Transwiki to Wiktionary as a fad and trends, since they are many Lite software appearing likewise to -zilla. (e.g. ChemIDplus Lite, EditPad Lite, Firebug Lite, iRed Lite, jCarousel Lite, K-Lite, NDS Lite, Skype Lite SQLite...etc.) --173.183.102.184 (talk) 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Scott MacDonald. Canley (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takehiko Fujii[edit]

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

unsourced BLP Jack Merridew 17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 nuff said. Ridernyc (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Fails A7, indication of importance despite lack of references to support those claims (even after user Bali ultimate deleted almost the entire article). æron phone home 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. æron phone home 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be a musician is not a claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: A7 is "No indication of importance". The article before and after states "Takehiko Fujii [...] is a Bemani musician". Bemani is an international music video game franchise owned by Konami that has been in operation for about 12 years running. It is responsible for prominent game series such as Dance Dance Revolution and Beatmania. That is a vast amount of notability which is no way vague or difficult to understand. A7 indicates "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." I agree that the article is unsourced, fortunately that is not an excuse in of itself for immediate (or gradual) deletion. æron phone home 19:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that the notability of the Konami subsidiary/unit named Bemani does not make all of its employees notable? Not inherited, all that? If you didn't before, now you should.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete should be speedy. Unsourced blp on a non-notable musician (unclear what instruments) for video games (allegedly). No notability asserted, none that i can establish. He's just a freelancer for a video game company.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Where) are you looking? [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. Two minutes in Google. æron phone home 20:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, subjects personal blog and his employers website. What precise biographical information would you like to use those non-inependent sources for, and why do you think they establish notability for the subject of this blp that has been unsourced for at least three years?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are, and there's much more on the subject if further research is done. The point is its easier for you to just delete because you don't care about the subject or are too lazy to do work to an article when you see that it needs it. So why are you even here? æron phone home 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete is what this should be. JBsupreme (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Scott MacDonald. Canley (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Furukawa[edit]

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

unsourced BLP Jack Merridew 17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 not sure why all these have not been CSD'd for the past 4 years. Ridernyc (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Fails A7, indication of importance despite lack of references to support those claims (even after user Bali ultimate deleted almost the entire article). æron phone home 19:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. æron phone home 19:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be a producer is not a claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: A7 is "No indication of importance". The article before and after states "Tatsuya Furukawa [...] is a Bemani producer". Bemani is an international music video game franchise owned by Konami that has been in operation for about 12 years running. It is responsible for prominent game series such as Dance Dance Revolution and Beatmania. That is a vast amount of notability which is no way vague or difficult to understand. A7 indicates "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." I agree that the article is unsourced, fortunately that is not an excuse in of itself for immediate (or gradual) deletion. æron phone home 19:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced blp on an non-notable producer of music for video games. No notability asserted, none that i can find.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Where) are you looking? [29] [30] [31] [32]. Two minutes in Google. æron phone home 20:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one a reliable source independent of the subject -- his personal website and the website of his employer, like this one you said was a good "cite" www.konamistyle.jp/customfactory/good-cool/index.html.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are, and there's much more on the subject if further research is done. The point is its easier for you to just delete because you don't care about the subject or are too lazy to do work to an article when you see that it needs it. So why are you even here? æron phone home 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally building strong, sourced, verifiable articles on subjects worthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. Why are you so worried about an unsourced blp? Where were you for the past 3 years?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing and building (single handedly it seems) the Dance Dance Revolution articles. The artists involved in the series (And these two are primarily involved in Beatmania) are towards the bottom of a very large to do list. It's hard enough to find people to help out without people like you deciding that removing content from what aims to be the sum of human knowledge is "contributing". And it's a shame that you think Japanese musical artist and game producers aren't serious enough for your idea of what Wikipedia should be. It's so much more than you allow yourself to see it as. æron phone home 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's attributing things to me that are untrue. Here's my view on people in the japanese video game industry (which also happens to be my view of everyone in every industry, everywhere). Some of them are notable and some are not. We have guidelines to help sort out which is which. Why do you believe that this person is notable, exactly, and which guideline would you point to to support that?Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions are a citation to your beliefs. ^_- And if you look up, I already said why. You should, I hope, already know what guidelines support a video game producer. æron phone home 20:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a shit what you think about me. You still haven't explained what specific notability standard (seems a clear fail of BIO, CREATIVE, GNG, etc...) he passes and what source supports this allegation. Enlighten me.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't about what I think of you, it's about how being a deletionist is a such a terribly perfect practice in laziness. You don't go around telling other people to look up the reason why you want to delete something, one has to provide a reason why it must be removed. The "unsourced three-letter-acronym" example that Jack gave up top is a case in point. What does that mean?

You obviously have no knowledge of these people, so you can't be expected to help contribute to the articles, but you bothered to walk over here and slap delete stickers on them cause you think it's something to do. Your profile is the exact same thing, you're posting links to articles, bitching, and demanding that "someone" (other than you) fix it. spend your time and effort helping out, preferably on something you're familiar with, If you can't or won't, again... Why are you even here? æron phone home 22:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't appear to know much about this person either. This is a deletion debate. So I'll ask a question for a third and final time: In what way does this person pass WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC etc... and what source supports this? If you can't answer this question, the rest of your spew about "helping" and "laziness" is just background noise, more of the dull-droning that seeks to drown out reason so often here.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If what you can't answer directly is filed as 'droning' then yet another case in point. For your question, since you asked so nicely, it does. And with the sources I listed too. Maybe that's not enough for you, boo hoo, so what? You're not exactly a model community member that others would lean upon for a fair and balanced assessment of a situation so I'm not worried if the persistence of these articles makes you upset. It's amazing how angry people get when information they don't care about simply exists. If I was like you, I would be listing those seemingly arbitrary football player articles at least five times a day. Thank God I'm not. I admit nothing we've been talking about is directly related to this deletion debate, but I'll take the time to use one as an excuse to address the underlying problem that more often than not is the reason for the AFD in the first place. Not that it accomplishes anything. Adéu... æron phone home 22:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you've actually got no argument to make that this person passes any of the notability guidelines? You should have just said so at the outset.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A near unanimous keep. There is a considered consensus, developed as the discussion progressed, that WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to the event, and that the event meets WP:EVENT. There is a proposal to re-name the article, which can be discussed on its talk page (non-admin closure) Mkativerata (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manila shootout[edit]

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

One of the several gang vs. police encounters, not withstanding the high death toll, this like several of the others. Qajar (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator. Qajar (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If 12 gang members, 4 bystanders and a policeman were killed in a shootout anywhere in the United States, there would be no debate whatsoever. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for failing to provide any valid rationale for deleting whatsoever. Blodance the Seeker 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a massive shootout, that much is very quickly apparant. Clearly notable. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator failed to tag the article with {{afd1}}, so I did so on their behalf. I take the nominator's stance to be that the event is not notable, which may be true - was there any lingering coverage of the event? Have there been subsequent incidents of this scale, or is this notable as the largest such shootout in the Phillippines (for example)? NOTNEWS applies as well, but follow-up coverage of the shootout's impact on the city and region (increased security, etc) would mitigate that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That strikes me as a much stricter standard for notability than we insist upon for such incidents when they happen in the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Canada, etc. In answer to the question, their seems to be lingering coverage of the event [33]. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want the same for something in the US, for example - if something happens, and there's an article in the paper about it, and it's never discussed or mentioned again, you can't really call the event a notable one, in my mind. If there's follow-on coverage, that's a pretty good indication of the impact (and notability) of the event. The trick here might be that there is so much more media in the US (and, thus, media coverage) that more events get that follow-on in-depth coverage. The link you provide does indicate that such coverage exists here, though, so I'd now move to Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is definitely notable, statement by nominator seems incoherent. RadManCF (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found it hard to understand why people would think a major street shootout, in which 17 people died, is not notable. Just because it is unknown in the United States and/or lacking English sources does NOT make it anywhere near non-notable. Blodance the Seeker 01:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and possibly rename I'm inclined to delete per WP:NOTNEWS, but some of the arguments above convince me that this does in fact meet WP:EVENT. Should this be moved to Parañaque shootout? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford and my comments, above. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Staffelbach[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Polargeo (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His cycling of the Tour de France course at a venerable age to promote his business (Staffelbach Designs) earned him some mentions but no real significant coverage of him as a person. The creator of the article appears to have a conflict of interest having originally posted coverage of the company on his talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Polargeo (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, in the absence of new sources that show notability. The Tour de France item is interesting, but if that's the main hook for notability then there isn't enough to pin an article to. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to a Weak Keep. The notability might be a bit thin, but additional sources from Eastmain (and one add'l one I found) are sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I formatted the references and took a look at the awards. I think he's notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is there yet and I'd like to leave this a few days to get more opinion. Particularly because the creator of the article appears to have a conflict of interests. I am not clear that notability has yet been established, he has obviously recieved an award within his own sphere but it is not really clear that this award is notable outside of the area, or even internationally within his area of work. The references for his riding the Tour de France course appear to be local media or media within his business circles, most people pulling a stunt like that at his age can drum up a bit of local coverage but unless covered by national or preferably international general media it does not really show notability. Polargeo (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is there. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only non-trivial coverage is from a local Dallas paper profiling the couple. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria and WP:ANYBIO, he has received a notable award or honor. By the way, here's another source, and another. Wine Guy Talk 01:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By what source do you ascertain that his award is notable? Just assuming the award is notable because it sort of looks like it might be falls a long way short of the criteria. Polargeo (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also you point to two local Dallas news sources. This is what we have been discussing all along. There appears to be only local news or business news within his own sphere of influence and nothing outside of that. Polargeo (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RoadBike[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine. Article is supported only by the mag itself. Confict of interest & spam. Evb-wiki (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - GNews has a fair number of hits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see lots of false positives in Google books and news but only perhaps 3 news articles that actually refer to RoadBike magazine. None of these is anything more than a passing mention, and none of them contain information about RoadBike magazine which we could cite in the article. --Dbratland (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, Dbratland sums up pretty much what I could find: a few passing mentions, enough to confirm that it exists, but mostly in the context of saying that so-and-so worked for RoadBike magazine, rather than any actual coverage of the magazine. As a note to the closing admin, Roadbike currently redirects to Road bicycle, but the author keeps changing it to point to RoadBike. In the event this article is kept, Roadbike should be a dab. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criterion G7. The only contributing editor had requested deletion by blanking the page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strokelab[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, describes what startup company will do, along with the nature of the need it was setup to address; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, mostly self-referenced. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 00:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hastings (colonist)[edit]

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

This person's only claim to notability appears to be that he was an American colonist. While there are plenty of sources it does not seem to me that settling in North America is sufficient distinction to justify an article. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(from the author) The Great Migration colonists were mostly of the same generation as those that came over on the Mayflower and comparable also in leadership terms of their own colony. Plymouth Colony was disinct at the time from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. From a macro perspective, the GM colonists to New England and their progeny have had a huge and important impact on the United States. Many of our greatest leaders (and a relatively few rogues) from the Northeast, the Midwest and West can trace their ancestry to one or more of these Puritan / Protestants who arrived between 1629 and 1640. As for Thomas himself, Watertown was a very important town in the 17th century and for some five decades he was one of its leading citizens and served in the MBC legislature (aka General Court). Finally, there are precedents for bios such as this; for instance, his contemporary and friend, Edmund Rice (1638). User:SBmeier —Preceding undated comment added 19:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Appears to have been notable at the time, article is suitably sourced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for what? Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article claims he held just about every available public office. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to remove it, page is well sourced and "Thomas Hastings" seems to have many decendants http://www.thomashastings.org/ and his own site dedicated to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OfNoInterest (talk • contribs) 17:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I am not sure all the sources actually do mention this person directly. In-line citations would be better. Alone he might not be that notable, the article might qualify as a "list class" for all the descendants. There seem to be several "list of youtube commedians from East Podunk" etc. that are less encyclopedic. Needs a biobox. Also get rid of the peackock words from the prose.W Nowicki (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being one of 20,000 migrants is not very impressive evidence of notability. The first source, from 1866 appears to be a privately printed genealogy which makes questionable assertions of "noble birth" as was common in vanity genealogies of the time. Notability is not inherited, nor does it percolate back to ancestors of notable persons. The article reads like speculation based on directory entries, and appears to fail WP:BIO. Ancestry.com is thataway and welcomes such ancestral prose. Edison (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sounds like he was notable as politician in the 17th century and it's sourced Vartanza (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Deputy for Watertown to the General Court of Massachusetts " is a member of the provincial legislature. Fully sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sources indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is clearly no consensus for outright deletion. Redirecting or merging is a definite possibility, but that should be worked out on the talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan[edit]

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

Consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Archive_15#Lists_of_highways_in_counties.3F is now against this type of list. As such, it is also listed at WP:FLRC. The key content from the list has already been merged into Marquette County, Michigan. As list creator, I'm asking that this now unpopular list article be removed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it's eligible for speedy deletion under WP:G7. If you like, you can try tagging the page with {{db-author}}. — Rankiri (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — I don't want to shortcut the processes, because of community opinion outside of the project sustains the existence of the list, then that's an acceptable outcome too. Imzadi1979 (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not eligible for G7 speedy deletion: CSD explanations, G7 says that it "[d]oes not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject." Bencherlite ^Talk 09:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for it to be deleted. I'm asking for a discussion over whether it should. The parent project says yes, but I disagree. I've brought the article to another forum for a wider consensus on the issue. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, posted my message under the wrong person's comments... I was intending to reply to Rankiri. Bencherlite ^Talk 22:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marquette County, Michigan#State trunkline highways. There is nothing wrong with the list, but the parent article already contains most of its information and is well within the limits of WP:SIZE. I still have doubts about the necessity of this AfD discussion as it looks like an uncontroversial technical issue that has little to do with specific policy violations. — Rankiri (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article didn't contain the information until earlier today. WP:USRD has said that these lists shouldn't exist, but if the community consensus here says they should, I can un-merge the information. Please note that the list went through a WP:FLRC already that came out against merging the list into the county article. I'm looking for a wider range of discussion to see if the overall community, not a single wikiproject or a single process (FLC/FLRC) says they should be merged. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marquette County, Michigan#State trunkline highways - Per above. ---Dough 48 72 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~AfD can't enforce redirect/merges. It can only determine deletions. Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)~~ The Article has already been merged. The term would not be a valid search term, failing RfD, so shall the article be deleted? Imzadi1979 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such outcomes are perfectly acceptable. See WP:GD#Closure and the very first paragraph in WP:AFD. — Rankiri (talk) 17:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list. The nominator is clearly committed to improving wikipedia, to the point that they are willing to see their own Featured List deleted, provided that there is consensus for the content itself to be contained in the county's article. I like the look of the Marquette County article, and therefore support deletion. As an aside, I imagine that this discussion will be the forerunner for mass merging, blanking and speedy deletion of these sorts of lists. It was very important to take at least one of them to AfD, to ensure there was wider consensus for the type of merge being carried out. WFCforLife (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There are over 3000 counties in the United States. We don't want 3000 lists. --Rs chen 7754 09:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would otherwise unbalance the country article. It is odd to still see arguments based on how many articles we would need, as if w3000 lists were something we could not accommodate. AS long as there are people to write them, what's the objection--such arguments contradict the policy of NOT PAPER DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I am rather ambivalent as to whether the list stays or is merged somewhere, I feel the county article is the wrong place to put it. A balanced county article would not under any circumstance contain a list of highways, although it might have a short mention in the prose. Consider if Marquette County was to be improved to GA standards—then clearly this list would have to go somewhere else. Is it suitable to create a list of highways in Michigan, or is that going to be too long a list? The problem is not so much that the US Highways WikiProject can't try to establish standards for what sorts of lists they want, but they have no "authority" over county articles. Quite the contrary: they will have a very biased view on what is important, since their interests will over-fucus on roads. I would like to see a more constructive solution to the problem than has been presented so far. For instance, an article such as road transport in Marquette County, Michigan might be able to comply to my objections, while being much broader than just state highways and could contain history, county routes etc. Arsenikk ^(talk) 00:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As it is now, the county article isn't dominated by the highway article. --Rs chen 7754 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was suggested at this article's previous FLRC that the list should contain the county roads, the only problem is that in Michigan, the state, the counties and cities are the only jurisdictions that maintain roads. This county is larger than Rhode Island, and it contains over a 1000 separate roads that aren't under state or city maintenance. Personally, I would prefer the list to remain as is and un-merge what has been added to the county article. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a general principle for this type of article - Michigan as a state is a bit funny but here goes... if I understand correctly, the "List of state highways in..." articles are for the chop, but the "List of county routes in..." articles are for keeping. Whereas the "List of highways in..." articles are going to have the state/US/Interstate bits merged off into the article for the actual county, leaving just the county information, and hence the article will be renamed "List of county routes in...". I don't really understand the rationale behind the changes to the "List of highways in..." type articles because I think that the result of making those changes will be less useful for the reader, whilst not actually changing the number of articles on Wikipedia at all. And I'm not sure that the actual county articles should contain road information - some counties are very populous so there is already a lot to talk about - rst20xx (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of 2010 Haiti earthquake aftershocks[edit]

The result was Result was to redirect to 2010 Haiti earthquake#Aftershocks (non-admin closure) -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 08:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per the PROD-tag which was removed with no explanation given. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 13:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The explanation is in the edit summary of the removal. In any case, this is not really an AfD problem. Either we develop the article to avoid clutter of the main article, or we turn it into a redirect to the relevant section of the main article. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If "Not that I'm convinced we need this but a prod tag won't be of much use," is supposed to be the explanation, then it's extremely unclear! ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 14:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's best to close this AfD and start a talk page thread in Talk:2010 Haiti earthquake to discuss the issue. Pichpich (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er—no? Why should the AfD be closed?! ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 14:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it will take five days to be processed and we don't want people to start building the article if it's ultimately deleted. More to the point: AfD is unsuited to solve editorial discussions and can't efficiently handle discussions about articles that change significantly between the start and end of the week-long AfD debate. Pichpich (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
btw, I started the talk page debate. I suggest that we handle it there, not here. Pichpich (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I want the page to be deleted, which is why I nominated it for deletion. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, it won't be deleted. I'm not saying this because it's my own personal preference, it's just a fact about the standard way to organize content on Wikipedia. It will either survive on its own or be redirected to the main article. Pichpich (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that a deletion is deserved for this article, but I am not convinced with the nom's rationale. My point is that why to create an article purely states a list of aftershocks of a major earthquake? It is almost impossible to list all of them, like what happened to this article is that it is only expected to be expanded whenever there is an aftershock, which is of course entirely impossible since not all aftershocks (reading major and minor quakes) are recorded and that scientific community is busy with the account of the earthquake. I reckon this has been separated from the main article, but the "List" size which is only composed of one line is not a justification that it came from a split decision from the main article. Perhaps we can make a worthy mention of this aftershock on the "Aftermath" section. Oh, by the way, the line contained in the "List" was mentioned in the geology section of the earthquake, so a delete is necessary.--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 15:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, List of 2008 Sichuan earthquake aftershocks... Pichpich (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I guess an existence of another earthquake aftershocks is not a fundamental and strong reason to have another article featuring list of aftershocks. I propose to delete the article as of this time, and wait for substantial expansion that requires split.--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 15:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since none of the sources are accessible for the Sichuan earthquake, it's difficult to verify it. However it's not at all clear that a list of earthquakes that runs for nine months after the original event is entirely composed of aftershocks. It seems to me that it's likely the information could be compressed and presented in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's easy to list all of the aftershocks. They're here. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those are aftershocks? How about in three months time? Seems like WP:OR to me unless there are reliable sources specifically listing "Aftershocks of the 16:53 12 January 2010 Haiti earthquake."--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a fair point WP:V-wise.Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's a solid scientific definition of aftershock so that's not an issue. Pichpich (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is an issue because the scientific definition is so broad that every seismic event of any size in Haiti is going to count for probably several decades; after a short while nobody outside the seismic community is going to notice. Acto the definition given in our article the page on New Madrid aftershocks ought to be still getting longer! Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but won't object to recreation if someone comes up with a reliably sourced list of definate aftershocks of this particular earthquake. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mention it in the earthquake article. This is a case of wanting to be first to write the article after watching the event reported on TV. Although it was a severe aftershock, there is no reason to separate this from the original quake. In addition, you don't have to seismologist to know that there are lots of aftershocks after an earthquake, hence the name, and there is no reason to list every single event. Mandsford (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010 Haiti earthquake#Aftershocks (should the list become too large it can then be split off) and close the AFD. No need to waste 5 days here. Yomangani ^talk 17:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Yomangani's good idea. Warrah (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now as suggested. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Does not warrant a sep article. JBsupreme (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per Yomangani...Modernist (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect — as proposed. Gosox(55)(55) 01:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Fareri[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Three external links, one to his site, one to a commercial site selling lessons, and the third to a 7 year old review on a site that looks more like a blog/fanboard than a reliable source. MBisanz ^talk 13:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient reliable sourcing online to establish notability, and no evidence given of available offline sourcing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked wide and deep, and could not find reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gravitational search algorithm[edit]

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

References given all seem to be by the primary author and no secondary sources are given. This is a possible case of self-promotion. At the least, notability has not been established. RDBury (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to flag WP:Conflict of interest and a few other issues by the creator (and probable sole contributor) three times, but first creator and then an anonymous IP editor have removed them each time without resolving the problem. This isn't reason for deletion of itself of course, but worth noting. MuffledThud (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There seems to be one independent secondary source that actually contains non-trivial coverage on the topic: see [34], pages 183–186. However, I don't think this is enough. Something first introduced in 2009 is simply too recent; time will tell whether it was a notable invention. This article can be re-created if the concept turns out to be notable. — Miym (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability, but also WP:COI concerns as the sources and attribution in the text seem to be from the main contributor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recent research referenced only from primary sources. Pcap ping 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paxobyte[edit]

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

A deduplication storage system (whatever that is). No evidence that it even exists let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It exists, but I can't find significant coverage for it. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: http://mercedhill.com/paxobyte/product-server.htm --OfNoInterest (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. Spammy, no independent sources, no demonstrable significance (I am a virtualisation and storage architect and I have never even heard of it, unsurprising since there are only 15 uique Google hits including this page and the domain name was only registered at the end of August 2009). Entirely the work of single-purpose accounts. Canonical vanispamcruftisement, in other words Guy (Help!) 19:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. JBsupreme (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks like spam, sounds like spam, tastes like my laptop monitor. Delete. -WarthogDemon 18:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reliable evidence it has been released yet, fails WP:MUSIC, specifically WP:NSONGS. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Exception[edit]

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

This recent article has twice been redirected to the album entry, and twice undone. Under WP:MUSIC it simply does not seem to me notable enough to keep, and I would appreciate the confirmation of the community on this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Redirect to album article until song charts and more can actually be written in the article. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tried twice with this article. Never quite sure what to do if the page creator keeps removing the redirect.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. With the result of this AfD at least you will have a clear consensus one way or the other. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brand New Eyes for now. It's a bit premature for a separate article, as I can find no independent reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage for this song; only trivial mentions within album reviews. At this time, it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did not create the page, I only changed it into a proper article from the redirect. Oh by the way someone called User:Jake Marr started the original article. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I assumed it was the original author both times. According to WP:MUSIC a single needs to have considerable notability (be a top ten hit, sell a million, have a notorious video or some such) to warrant an article of its own. Properly this article should be redirected back to the album as noted above. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It'll have to be made sooner or later, so keep it to make it easier for readers, because if you redirect to Brand New Eyes they'll have to go through the whole page just to read about a tiny bit of this single. They'll probably also clicked on a link from Brand New Eyes to the article and will be kind of annoyed if it redirects, so I say keep. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna go ahead and say keep. Even though WP:MUSIC suggests that only the most notable of songs should have their own pages, most of the artists and albums I could think of to check have links to pages for every song on the album, and many of them would not pass WP:MUSIC in my opinion. This to me is beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF, and suggests that in fact the broad community consensus has changed to support the inclusion of individual song pages from notable albums. I also think there's snow in the forecast here. Ivanvector (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I'm trying to work out. I'll be interested to see what the outcome is.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument is simply a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because articles for other less notable songs exist, does not mean one should exist for this song. WP:MUSIC remains the same, as does GNG. With no assertion of notability yet, the article should remain a redirect. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right about WP:OTHERSTUFF, and I hope you don't mind that I copy-pasted your signature onto your comment, since it was missing. To be honest, I'm neutral about this article in particular, but I think it is very likely to be innocently recreated by another editor, who we will immediately bite with a CSD G4. It may as well survive, based on WP:SNOW. I can see how my comment about the trend of not-very-notable songs being included is out of place here, but the trend is worth noting. WP policies are based on consensus, and consensus can change. Ivanvector (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So we should keep this to avoid some newbie wrongly re-creating it? That's ridiculous. This is not snowball at all, in fact, I'm failing to see a strong argument to keep it. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge or redirect. An article on an individual song should be a rarity, occasioned by specific notability for the song, not the album or the artist. Certainly not before release. Sussexonian (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep. 222.155.128.37 (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a poll. We do not count votes. Please base your argument on wikipedia policy and guidelines only, not your opinion . Nouse4aname (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I've been waiting for someone to make this page for about a month now, finally it happened. So predictable. It needs to pass WP:NSONG with third-party sources, which it currently doesn't. All that is currently said can be covered in the album page - please source it. Do we really need AfD's for matters like this? A simple bold redirect would suffice. kiac. (talk-contrib) 16:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it does have third party sources sourced in it. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A dubious (Ustream, reliable???) streaming video interview and 3 self-published links from their website? There's no need to defend this, it will be back up before you know it. Just be patient. kiac. (talk-contrib) 00:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should watch the video instead, instead of just saying it's not reliable. She does state things that support the statement. You can't get much more official than someone who is actually in the band. 122.57.155.98 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official does not mean reliable. Two totally different things. She can give us a great observation on how great rainbows are for all I care, but it does not make it reliable or unreliable. That video is not making this article notable. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think you're so smart why don't you try to find better sources? 122.57.155.98 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thus the reason behind the redirect - To wait for sufficient sources to arise. Sheesh. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Australians... 219.89.23.130 (talk) 04:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you insinuating??? Racist pig. kiac. (talk-contrib) 04:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it has been boldly redirected twice, and the redirect reverted twice. Hence this AfD Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon we should keep the article, I agree with Ivanvector, on the number of music articles which do not meet the guidelines, but it wouldn't do any harm by leaving it here? MadamLouvre (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because they exist, does not mean they should exist. It has no bearing on the existence of this article. This article will come in time, as of now, it is not notable. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiac, people are just voicing their opinions, why do you have to reply to all of them just to argue? I've noticed this on all of the editors that have said keep. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is making valid points. This isn't the forum for an argument. He's right that the sources fail to meet WP:RS. That wasn't my point, and I maintain that it's a snowball, but I'll back off on that. I'll say redirect, but that's actually already been done and reverted twice, so this is looking like an edit war. The solution is to redirect it again, and if it is reverted again, see dispute resolution. That is, unless you want the info in the article to be deleted forever. Ivanvector (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't attacking the editors, or doing anything wrong. If someone is making pointless contributions, I am happy to state it, and refute it. People don't do that enough on Wikipedia, which is why we get extremists doing their own thing much too often. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the single isn't even released yet. The page should be deleted for now, and can be re-created once the single is released. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bramblestar "the single isn't even released yet." Actually it is, well over here in New Zealand, its been getting a lot of radio airplay. Mcrfobrockr (talk) 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I live in America, where the single won't be released until April. Thanks for telling me about the New Zealand release. Bramblestar (ShadowClan Leader) (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I noticed that the article of Brick by Boring Brick, the single released before this one, was also created before its release date by someone called Kiac, who is now opposing this one. I wonder why that is. [35] Mcrfobrockr (talk) 05:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing Alternative Press sourcing a release date for this single? And if you look at the revision 7 minutes later, you will also see a link to MTV. Furthermore, if you do a little investigating, you will notice that that was a compromise, as the article had been created a long time before under numerous different (incorrect) page titles. Mind you, that was a month from release, this page is 4 months from release. Ps. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS again. kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do I have to say that it has already been released? Or if not that, it has been receiving a lot of radio airplay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcrfobrockr (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it as many times as you like. We still have no Reliable Sources. Why should we believe you? It hasn't hit the charts, so why should we just take your word for it having airplay? Because I highly doubt that. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I don't care if you don't believe, me but it has had received radio airplay on The Edge FM Mcrfobrockr (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect - Article doesn't demonstrate why this particular song is notable enough to merit a separate article, per WP:NSONGS, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article". Not helped by the fact that it hasn't been released yet and only one source cited is independent of the artist involved. Some of those voting to keep this article seem to be able to predict the future. Since I lack this skill, I'm unable to consider how notable the subject will become. Adambro (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G7. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in Thai football[edit]

2010 in Thai football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

Page made in error, should have been a template Druryfire (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 00:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asiagh[edit]

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

I feel that this article should be removed, or at least returned to a previous state -- and maybe locked -- because of its incredibly dubious content. Some examples:

" They were first inhabitants of Scandinavia and they also founded Jutland as their homeland in Europe.^[1] "

" Sihag Jats were in a Scythian tribe called massagetae and lived on the banks of the River Oxus(Amu Darya) along with Her, Bhullar and Dahiya Jat tribes in central asia thousands of years before Christ,than they migrated to northern salt-range Punjab region in India and at the time of Alexander invation in Punjab in 326 B.C. they fought with Alexander The Great and than Asiagh(Sihag) along with Punia,Godara,Saran,Beniwal and Johiya migrated to north Rajasthan region known as Jangladesh and ruled there till 15th century . "

" They were pure Scythian males who migrated from Europe and central Asia to north-western India and conquered many parts of it.They intermingled with pure Aryan females of this area. "

There is also the sub-par English and randomly distributed bold letters. I hope you'll consider getting rid of this disgrace of an article.

Antonbr (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Antonbr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonbr (talk • contribs) 2010/01/19 14:53:19 [reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, a mess indeed. The article makes some grandiose claims about the clan, many of which are unverifiable and/or outright false, including the "first inhabitants of Scandinavia" and "founded Jutland as their homeland in Europe" claims brought by the nominator. The only source I found that was remotely reliable was this one, which goes into some history of the Asiaghs that I find interesting, but don't see how it meets notability criteria. The article lists several people who are allegedly members of this clan, 3 of which have Wikipedia articles. One of those three is an alternate spelling, and the other two are questionable based on a quick read. Ultimately, I can't find any indication that this clan is notable - no independent RS coverage of the clan itself or a list of notable people who are members of the clan. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:FRINGE extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. This essay (and it reads more like a badly written essay than an encyclopedia article) makes extraordinary claims with basically no proof. I mean "Jats entered Scandinavia around 500 BCE and their leader was Odin Singh." What?!?!? Seriously, is this WP:MADEUP or do some people actually believe the chief of the Aesir was an Indian settler? Simonm223 (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- well spotted. This is of course "MADEUP", but it is made up by people in the 19th century (you know, people didn't just become stupid in the 1990s when they went online, people have been proudly stupid for centuries, it just has become more evident since absolutely everybody can dump their opinions on Wikipedia). There is a lot of FRINGE material that can still be added to Scythians#Descent_claims. The problem is that we get garbled version of these theories in gotra train wrecks such as this one, and if we want to unravel the history of these ideas, we are on our own to find the sources. --dab (𒁳) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete with prejudice. I would love to say that this is a horrible example of gotra cruft, but sadly it is just an average example, I come across these all the time. It is time somebody addressed this systemic problem with some coordination. After deletion, Arsagalitae may be made a redirect as a bona fide ethnonym found in Pliny's Naturalis Historia. --dab (𒁳) 16:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An older version of the article appears more reasonable but again is practically unverifiable (I looked up some of the listed sources). Google books doesn't return anything substantial besides such circular references. If good reliable sources are located at some later date, a more sober article can be created. Abecedare (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice. The article is no better or worse than a majority of our gotra/clancruft articles. Nothing really in RS to justify anything in the article, and even if one could be created, WP:TNT would apply. For those interested in doing some further cleaning, Category:Jat clans can serve as a starting point for many similar articles. -SpacemanSpiff 17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- trying to find any shred of information on "Asiagh", it would appear that it was the name of an obscureRajput clan subjugated by Rao Bika in the 15th century.[36] I doubt they have been heard from since. The speculative connection to Bactria was made by Todd (1829)here, the inexhaustibe excuse for hundreds of horrible gotra articles on Wikipedia.
as for "Sihag", all I can find is that this is apparently an Indian surname. Allegedly (nobody is verifying this stuff), belonging to the Dahiya gotra. I know without looking that if Dahiya comes up in blue, it will lead to a horrible article. If any of this can be at all verified, these names can become redirects to referenced list entries at List of Jat clans. This is what should probably happen to about 90% of Wikipedia's gotra articles. --dab (𒁳) 18:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax, reads like complete bollocks, lacks a single credible source. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - A crappy article is not a reason for deletion. An article with no reliable sources that barely asserts encyclopedic notability is a candidate for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke with fire. There's a vast quantity of Jat-cruft here of which this is simply the tip of the iceberg. Moreschi (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article Asiagh is about an ancient clan and a social group of India and Pakistan. This clan has certain history and historical traditions. We should know what it is. On Wikipedia we do have articles on each plant species and even the imaginary mythological characters and the characters of even games. We are not thinking to delete these articles. The history portion of this article got developed content which requires clean up and reliable references to make it authentic. My logic in favour to retain this article derives from a person who develops cancer in a part of body. The doctor does not kill the man but treats him first and if that part is not treated he removes that part only. Similarly this article needs clean up and not the deletion. Keep. burdak (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "We should know what it is" indeed. Therefore, WP:TNT, clear the rambling nonsense off the page and start over, striclty based on WP:RS. You bet we have articles on "characters of even games". You will note that these articles manage to cite their references and don't make up things as they go along. In your cancer simile, the Jat-cruft articles do not have cancer, they are the cancer, and it is high time to get rid of it so the actual article, Jat people, can get back on its feet. --dab (𒁳) 10:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fringe original research lacking clear notability and extant reliable sources. Vassyana (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , stubbify, and rewrite. Agreed that a good deal of it does not make much sense, but is anyone saying there was no such group? DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons of the Batman comics and films[edit]

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

WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Sources give facts about the films and comics- they do not compare them to each other. Ironholds (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comparisons of this sort are widely accepted here. /they can be expressed by giving comparative facts sourced to the works; this does not require synthesis or original research--just collecting the information from the different sources. DGG ( talk ) 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Taking this as an example, consensus seems to be that it is encyclopedic where there are works comparing them. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that was a atypical AfD due to disputes about whether or not the comparison made any sense at all, as some people saw no obvious relation between the Han Empire & the Roman. This is not likely to be the case here. Can anyone say that the comparison of the same characters in films & comics is not totally obvious? DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't necessarily have a problem with an article on this subject, the problem is that the article does not appear to do what it says on the title. There does not appear to be much comparison being done, but rather extended plot details about characters. Much of this information is already present in the individual character articles so I don't understand the purpose of the article as written. (For example under the heading Batman (1989 film), the section on the Joker is largely the same as sections of Joker (comics).) At the moment I am leaning towards delete on the basis of duplication and the article apparently not being about what its title says. Quantpole (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would probably pose WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues if the article was actually about what it claims to be. The problem is that it's not. This article is simply a rehash of other, better articles that are already listed at [[:Category:Lists of Batman characters]]. If someone wanted to create something to the tune of Characters in the Batman Universe that comprehensively described the characters from all the assorted mediums, then knock yourself out, possibly even rename this article and then expand on it. But the article as it currently stands should go. Trusilver 22:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We tend to discourage articles about comparisons, simply because one can compare anything to anything else. In this instance, it's an extremely limited bit of original research, which would more accurately be titled "Comparisons of the characters in the pre-1959 Batman comics and the post-1989 Batman films". This is the type of stuff that is already done within the articles about the characters themselves, where one can discuss the interpretations of the Joker by Heath Ledger, Jack Nicholson, Cesar Romero, and the various DC artists. Mandsford (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own personal view is that we should rather encourage them. An encyclopedia is a place to collect information, and to arrange related subjects together. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except when the arrangement comes through OR and synthesis. There is justification for a comparison article between X and Y when that comparison has been covered in reliable sources, not when an article can by synthesised and stitched together from sources dealing with X and Y. Ironholds (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this isn't a comparison it is a retelling of the character's roles in the various media, which are already dealt with in the relevant articles - the only way it could be a comparison is if you were already knowledgeable about the relevant character and could spot the differences. If anyone wanted to write about the comparisons they should be on the films' article or in the relevant part of character's article, but even then they'd need to be well sourced or they'd get removed for original research. So this isn't the article it claims to be and even if it was, this isn't the place for this information (and if if it were in the right place, it'd need to be better written and better sourced than this example). (Emperor (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An obviously hopeless case for WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. Mangoe (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh no. For a change I disagree with DGG, because this is clear WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and is essentially going to remain so. I'd be struggling to see the benefit even if it could be properly sourced, but this is just fan opinion nonsense. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

José Carlos Tofolo Júnior[edit]

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

Campeonato Paulista contain fully pro and semi-professional team, not considered as made his debut at fully-professional team, fails WP:athlete Matthew_hk t c 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As far as I can tell, he is yet to make his senior debut, professional or otherwise, and therefore clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. There is no basis for keeping under WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No it is already listed in WP:Footy that day. Matthew_hk t c 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the message means. It wasn't listed at WP:AFD, which is more important than being listed on one WikiProject's page........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found that. May be i faced a edit conflict and not saved. Matthew_hk t c 17:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 20:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marrambique[edit]

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

Sounds like something the editor made up one day RadManCF (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NEO, WP:PROMOTION, WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Made up. Joe Chill (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be anything more than a "style" invented by one musician. I can't find any sources that suggest this style is widely used, let alone notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ServerBeach[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion. This is a non-notable business that provides web hosting. The one event upon which this business rests its claim to fame is that it used to host YouTube's servers. When YouTube took its business to Google, they posted a video response that got some media play. This flurry of coverage is not enough to sustain a claim of notability for this otherwise behind the scenes business, and I find only press releases and routine announcements otherwise. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Keep. There's non-trivial press coverage about the company outside that event from a half-a-dozen different sources [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46], mentioned alone on CNN [47]; also mentioned together with Rackspace [48] on O'Reilly. Satisfies WP:GNG and it's more notable than the average hosting company too. Pcap ping 17:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen at least some of those when I went looking. Even if we assume that a "Data Center Knowledge", "Hardware Today", or "Web Hosting Industry News" websites all are reliable sources, I don't think that announcements like "ServerBeach Goes Offline After Outage" or "ServerBeach Moves Into Larger Data Center" constitute the significant coverage needed. That's why I said I found "press releases and routine announcements". They seem to be reporting rather routine events. The O'Reilly story simply mentions this as an available vendor with the facilities to set up the sort of teleconference system that is its chief subject. The CNN mentions them the same way. The only real exposure I found for this is the YouTube story. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Multiple sources that are all incidental or trivial. Could be merged/re-directed to Peer1, the article says they were bought out by them. Miami33139 (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how this, this, this or this are trivial or incidental. None of these articles are about outages, by the way. (The serverwatch.com article says that ServerBeach was a top 15 US hosting company, so it shouldn't be surprising that their outages were newsworthy.) Pcap ping 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - San Antonio local business reporting on employee expansion - any local business can get the local paper to print stuff like this. The others seem like filler material in niche reporting. There is a claim here, that this was a top 15 US hosting company (does that mean the top 15 in every country are notable?). However, I don't see how that stuff doesn't belong in a historical section of a different article - about the company that bought them out. This does not need to be standalone material. Miami33139 (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Beside the technical publications and local newspapers it was also covered in 5 paragraphs in this CNNMoney story, who misspelled it as "Server Beach", so I didn't find it before. Pcap ping 10:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per WP:ORG none of the above references are significant enough for WP's notability standards. It needs coverage such as CNNs but on the company, not just mentioning it, while local and specialist coverage should also be disregarded. As it is there's nothing to establish notability.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "just mentioning it" is in the eye of the beholder. The company's entire independent history from inception to acquisition by PEER1 was described in those 5 paragraphs in CNN Money I linked above. If your standard for inclusion is a separate CNN article, then that does not exist indeed, but why not merge it to the parent company then, if CNN is the standard by which we structure our articles? Pcap ping 06:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multipls sources provided by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit indicate notability.--Pink Bull 01:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Gibraltarians[edit]

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

I proposed the article for deletion twice and it was debated, removed and then re-instated by its original author. Since then it has stumbled on and been revised by other editors until it is pretty much a meaningless waste of space. I again nominate it for removal. --Gibnews (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tripurari Swami[edit]

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

A non notable swami. A promotional article based on sources that are not independent or reliable. Wikid ^as© 03:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well published and reviewed author. Please note his other name, Swami B. V. Tripurari when using Google Books and Google Scholar for more information. His text, The BhagavadGita: Its Feeling and Philosophy, was reviewed by Arvind Sharma in the Journal of Vaishnava Studies (affiliated with Christopher Newport University and A. Deepak Publishing, Inc.) Vol. 13, No 2/Spring 2005; [49]. He is also known for his work with B. G. Sharma. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- since when being well published or having one review makes one notable? He is a self published author. No notability by merit of a review (BTW -- the Journal of Vaishnava Studies is tagged as well since the last year for it does not meet the criteria for inclusion). Wikid ^as© 18:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply He is not self-published. Tattva-sandarhba, Bhagavad-gita and Aesthetic Vedanta are published by Mandala. Fredeaker (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply A review written by Arvind Sharma, and published by a journal associated with a university, is a very valid reliable source. In addition - Another book, Aesthetic Vedanta, was reviewed by Yoga Journal [50], and has been cited by other authors as well, see; [51] and [52]. Thanks Ism schism (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If every person who has a review of his work got a page in WP -- that would be right. But it is not the case, notablitity is not based on reviews, it is based on extendend coverage of the subject by independent sources. Subject of this source is his book not the person. If you think that the book is notable, start an article about this book. But check the criteria for inclusion first. Wikid ^as© 14:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In his text, Holy war: violence and the Bhagavad Gita, Satyaraja Dasa states that Swami B.V. Tripurari is, "an author, poet and spiritual teacher. As a prominent master in the Gaudiya Vaishnava lineage, he is one of the leading practioners of Bhakti-yoga in the West." [53]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He received enough coverage in RS to be on Wiki. Besides sources mentioned above by Ism schism, there's also a review of his work in Yoga Journal and coverage in academic publications [54] [55] [56].--Gaura79 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AfD nomination is unnecessary and not in line with Wikipedia's policies. The specific statements in question should be noted as described in the Editing Policy. This is clearly stated in the Deletion Policy. Wikidas has a history of "gaming the system" as evidenced by this discussion. Fredeaker (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Arvind Sharma, Satyaraja Dasa, and Yoga Journal are reliable sources that attribute notability to this individual. These, along with other sources in the article, and authors who cite many of this author's books in their work ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], and [65] are a few...), together have shown that this individual is notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Benardo[edit]

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

I have to question the notability of this so-called phenomenon. He was on two reality shows two years ago and hasn't caught the public's eye since. It's time for him to go.TheNate (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seems to be a case of fifteen minutes of fame. Brief appearances acting silly do not count for notability. I would also have to say that "internet phenomenon" is quite an overstatement. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 04:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The criterion at WP:REALITY has not achieved consensus but even if it did, I don't think this individual truly qualifies as a contestant. In fact, his brief notoriety is more like WP:BLP1E. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on a clear consensus. Non-admin closure per my discretion. Chutznik (talk) 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Go The Sixties[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this television special. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that's up to you! This programme was broadcast across Western Europe on January 1, 1970, one of the very few music programmes outside of Eurovision to achieve that distinction. It is also the only UK/German TV entertainment production ever broadcast on BBC1 on prime time. The BBC considered it significant enough to archive, unlike any of the contemporary pop shows, which had their tapes wiped. It has been repeated many times on various channels across the continent. Clips from the show are often used on BBC compilation shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVArchivistUK (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I can't find much in the way of significant coverage, but a search backs up what TVArchivist says above - this show has been archived and repeated many times. It also has an entry on the BFI database: [66]. Better references than that are needed, but it looks to me as though it is probably notable. Robofish (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete goes this non-notable television special. JBsupreme (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is one of those annoying articles for which I know the truth, but can't find evidence online to support my knowledge. I remember this well 40 years after its broadcast, despite not remembering where I put my glasses five minutes ago, and part of that memory is that it was a big deal at the time and would certainly have attracted extensive media coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely keep. This was a major show at it's time and was the BBC's primary show broadcast on January 1, 1970. It was a big deal at the time and trailed continuously. I remember being very disappointed when I actually saw it, because it wasn't very good. Adam Faith sang a song from the 50's and the Stones sang a song that was never a hit!!! But regardless of the quality, it was a milestone co-production at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.107.106 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the same special happened now, with the same level of bands playing, it would generate enough coverage to satisfy notability criteria with online sources. As this one happened way before the internet existed all its sources will be offline. I'm sure there is a strong case for ignoring the rules here and keeping this article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?. There seems to be little argument over this page. And the majority of the comments are for keeping. Is this decided now? It has been 12 days since the debate was opened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVArchivistUK (talk • contribs) 16:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Funding Project[edit]

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

Unreferenced, describes boycott by non-notable group Life Decisions International, for which the WP article has been speedy-deleted three times. Quotes group's "estimate" of boycott's effectiveness. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. The only GNEWS hits I can find are press releases from LifeSiteNews.com, which also appears to be connected with the boycott. MuffledThud (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1. It is refereced to the Boycott List, the publication that is the boycott.

2. That a group is small, does not make it non-notable as you say. They have been mentioned numerous times on raido and on the internet/

3. Group's estimate is reasonable accurate. LDI Knows which groups stopped giving to PP as a result of the boycott, therefore they know that it weould be easy with that data to get a very reasonable estimate of the effect of the boycott has done. If Bank X was giving $20,000 a year every year until they were boycotted, then afterwards they gave nothing, it is almost painfully easy to construct a valid estimate of Planned Parenthood's loss as the result of this boycott.

This page gives valuable insights into the uses of modern boycotting, and underscores one of the tactics of the pro life movement that does not get attention at the pro life page.

This is a valuable page and should be left on wikipedia.

Ryan— Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanTKelly (talk • contribs)

Delete as per nom. no references non notable promotion only. Teapotgeorge^Talk 11:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this boycott. Joe Chill (talk) 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the standard of significant coverage in reliable sources.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No definite consensus either way that I can see. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters of Days of our Lives[edit]

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

Delete directory listing of sub-trivial soap characters. JBsupreme (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnotable, minor characters. Wikipedia is not a TV guide nor a Days of Our Lives fansite, and a listing of such minor characters falls squarely under both. Major characters are the only ones that are notable enough for any kind of coverage on Wikipedia, not this random list of minor ones that do nothing but repeat episode plot summaries already covered elsewhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim plot summary. Agree with Collectonian that this isn't a fan site, but there's no reason not to keep this as a list. In fact, many, many notable American television actors make their start in soaps, and DooL is among the most notable of those. Jclemens (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no third-party referencing for this article. It fails both notability and practical verifiability as it stands. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely useful and practical holding area for minor characters that can't support their own articles. Part of Wikipedia's remit is to be a reference material for all sorts of information; a catalog of fictional characters is part of that. It's got nothing to do with being TV Guide, which publishes detailed daily programming schedules. Powers ^T 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because they're, like, minor and stuff. No reliable sources independent of the subject treat these fictional things in any depth at all, either independently or in aggregate. There is no reliable source for the criteria of inclusion of this list. No way to confirm the accuracy of the claims without watching mind-gelatinating hours of soap operas, and no part of the sum of human knowledge being covered here. Entirely in universe, too.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JClemens. They're not available online, but there are several weekly soap magazines that cover soaps in crazy detail. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be, but they're not covering these minor characters. Please address the issues at hand with this list. JBsupreme (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basically, people who don't find soap stuff encyclopedic don't want to hear it, but those soap mags cover soaps in such detail, so frequently, that just about every soap character is notable. These characters could actually have seperate articles with production and reception sections, if wikipedians read those magazines, or could search them electronically (which we don't and can't). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character lists should generally restrict themselves to significant characters, or at the very least, characters to whom understanding of the plot would be significantly impaired (i.e. reading an episode list would be difficult) if they were not listed. Sourcing solves this problem in most cases, but even when considering the latter criterion, an entire list of minor characters falls squarely under WP:UNDUE. Merge the necessary ones to the main article or a larger list and trim the rest. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 22:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having worked on this article some, I agree that it needs MUCH work. However, most of the information contained in it is about characters who don't warrant separate articles themselves. Agree that sourcing is a problem. Rm994 (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needed List of Minor Characters. Unless all these characters are going to get there own page don't delete.Gabi Hernandez talk) 01:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one citation for ~43,348 bytes does not a valid article make; fails WP:V, WP:N, et. al. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to sources aplenty when checking on Google. These are notable and major characters to millions of viewers of this astonishingly recognizable show. Therefore, this article concerning non-trivial characters undeniably passes fails WP:V and WP:N per WP:PRESERVE and WP:MAD. Character lists should generally be as comprehensive as possible themselves to appeal to our broad diverse readership. Sourcing solves this problem in most cases, but even when considering the latter criterion, an entire list of minor characters falls squarely under our support of spinoff articles. If we merge the necessary ones to the main article or a larger list and trim the rest, we must still retain the edit history per the GFDL. No need to protect the public from this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article is plot summary, and is in direct violation of WP:PLOT. It would need a complete rewrite to be notable. And if there are so many sources (ostensibly plot related) when doing an online search, the information is not anything the public cannot find elsewhere.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A logical separation between major and minor characters in one of the leading US Soaps. Little doubt that numerous sources exist supporting all the characters, in fact we have Category:Television soap opera media including Soap Opera Digest that details every major US soap's plotlines and characters. The main character list is not dense but it is quite lengthy already and focussed as bare list whereas this list helpfully provides a sentence or two which is quite reasonable for a list. No reason to delete this which serves our readers who are interested in this content. -- Banjeboi 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's a list of minor characters and it does what a list of minor characters should do. These lists exist to collect information on fictional characters that do not individually warrent their own articles; by policy and definition none of them will be notable themselves or they would not be in this list. References undoubtably exist somewhere but not, I expect, within the stereotypical range of interests of the average dedicated internet-user or wikipedian. It looks like it could use some editing but nothing so extreme as deletion. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In fact, in addition to the magazines mentioned Google Books shows multiple books on the subject of Days of our Lives. None of them are viewable through Google Books, however, so the information will need to be gathered through a library or private collection. Nevertheless, the citations are clearly out there ready to be used. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2: I've trimmed and added some references to one character, Mia McCormick (picked at random), using online recaps, including airdates of appropriate episodes. I don't think I can personally do this for the entire list, as I do not have the time and I have never seen this soap, but it hopefully demonstrates that it can be done. I expect there are better references out there but these basically cover the necessary details. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment: It isn't active anymore but there might be some relevant guidance at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Episode recaps are not significant coverage of the character, and no, there is no relevance of that guideline at all as it was wholly rejected by the community as not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines. In reality, most minor characters are deleted as they are an unnotable element of a fictional work, and generally nothing but pure plot, as is this list. If a minor character has significant coverage, they usually are being mislabeled as minor or such information is more appropriate in the main article. The only minor character lists I see get kept are ones like this, in Soaps where it seems like the entire project and the series fans converge in mass to "defend" it with the claims that their "must" be coverage (without providing any), that because they are covered in Soap rags as part of an episode summary, that's significant coverage, and if they might be mentioned in some publication about the soap as a whole (which usually are not third party). The topic of minor characters in the soap as a whole is unnotable, which is why this list should be deleted, the same as any other. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not a fan of the soap, I don't even think it's broadcast in my country, it just looked like a defensible article while browsing AfDs. Having looked around, there are no guidelines about lists of minor characters (WP:FICT explicitly doesn't apply to lists). However, the fact that there is an entire Category:Lists of minor fictional characters (121 articles) and the precedent of previous AfDs (The top three in my search were Marmalade Boy, Eastenders and Firefly: two keeps and a merge) seems to indicate a de facto policy to accept these lists. (Also, policy-wise: per WP:NNC the content doesn't have to be notable, that applies to the list as a whole.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And notice that most of them are soap lists, several are in fact miscategorized regular character lists, and many are replicates from the same series. Seriously, 13 lists for Holly Oaks, 20 from Emmerdale!! You seriously think those are appropriate? Further, WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid keep reason, and there is nothing to merge from this list. Not the times on those AfDs, and check the articles since. For Marmalade Boy, those "minor characters" were long removed as part of its improvement and clean up in aim for FL. Other FL character lists also removed minor characters as part of such improvement, because they are not noteworthy. Any minor characters already receives all sufficient coverage in the summaries of the episodes they appear in. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, yes, a list per year seems a bit much (I haven't checked all of them but I imagine there would be a lot of repetition if nothing else). However, I think one list is allowable. Also, while WP:ITEXISTS isn't valid, AfD precedents are. Actually, with no proper guideline, even WP:ITEXISTS may have some application as a de facto policy until a de jure policy is created. In the meantime, I have started a discussion at the Village Pump to look for advice: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Advice on Lists of Minor Fictional Characters. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard fictional list that meets guidelines. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collectonian and Bali ultimate, above. This is basically a discrimination against trivial information issue; that's *why* they're minor characters. Take it to Wikia, where they welcome cruft. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with provisions; this list is somewhat misnamed, as a number of its characters are notable contract players (past and present) who simply don't need their own articles for one reason or another. What's really lacking in these cases are 1) citations asserting notability etc., which exist aplenty out there, and 2) some restraint on the part of the fangirls when recounting plotlines. The truly minor characters (and there truly are some here) need to be cut out, the others sourced and their coverage trimmed, and this list moved to Days of our Lives miscellaneous characters or something. I would say delete and start over, but a lot of work has been put in here that can be repurposed.— TAnthony^Talk 21:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a description of each named character is appropriate, even when there are a great many of them, as here. The description should be a short one, but there is no reason for saying they should not be there. I find such a list much clearer than relying on following through episode descriptions--but for those who like it the way Collectonian suggests, they can have that also. We're NOT PAPER, and a limited amount of overlap is not a bad thing. There is still a distinction from a fan site: a fan site permits every possible detail, and we do not. Attempts to remove combination articles and lists is an attempt to whittle down the coverage of fiction, and that goes against the basic concept of a modern encyclopedia. We do not necessarily have agreement on how much detail to have, but removing the place to put it will short-circuit any possible compromise. I hope that was not the intent here. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A10 duplicate article. JohnCD (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled tag eldeen[edit]

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

Having issue deciding whether notability inclusion criteria has been met. NJA (t/c) 09:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per lack of reliable third-party sources. The subject fails notability criteria for musicians. --Vejvančický (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A10, 7 day-old duplicate of Khaled Tag El Deen. Wine Guy Talk 09:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Original 9 day-old article is now at AfD as well, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Khaled_Tag_El_Deen. Wine Guy Talk 09:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Fletcher (actor)[edit]

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

Contested prod. As actor, his roles seem to be few and relatively minor to me, as painter I could not find independent sources, and none are given in the article. Pgallert (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the first PRODer. The subject is certainly not notable in terms of his acting career. On his website, his last scheduled art shows (under events) appear to be more than a year ago, and his work wasn't the sole attraction. However, he claims on his website that his works "have been featured in solo and group exhibitions." I tried finding independent sources that demonstrate his notability in terms of his painting career, with little luck. I found this website, but from what I can gather it's a place he rents space to sell his art. Overall I think he fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. PDCook (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should not be deleted: even if his roles are "few and minor" he can still be notable. Also "few and minor" is a subjective assessment. Even if he rents his space to sell his art, it could still be seen as a (solo and group) exhibition of his art, which could lead to notability. (Bgeelhoed (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I have not seen any evidence of notability so far. There are specific guidelines here, namely WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. If you can find WP:Reliable sources that demonstrate such notability, then please present them and I will certainly reconsider. PDCook (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not intending to badger but with regards to painters the policy is pretty explicit: "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries". This is not claimed by the article, never mind backed up by independent sources. Also, "few and minor" normally means: not notable. --Pgallert (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But whether or not something is "few and minor" is a subjective assessment (Bgeelhoed (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Agreed for the word "minor". I wouldn't know of many people who would object to the usage of "few" for something that occurred twice in 17 years of professional life. --Pgallert (talk) 13:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I wrote "few and minor" is a subjective assessment, not that "few and minor" are subjective assessments. :) (Bgeelhoed (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does not meet the most basic criteria of WP:BIO, and he's nowhere near WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE. Unless there is a plethora of sources that have not seen the light of google (which I seriously doubt), he's got to go. Wine Guy Talk 06:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Johnson[edit]

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

Lacks the sources on Notability and is written too much like a Résumé. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 09:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN resume. — Jeff G. ツ 20:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I make pots too. That doesn't make me notable per se Vartanza (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroyoshi Ohashi[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, does not appear to meet WP:BIO. The only source appears to be an entry in a database. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article as a stub to link to from plant species articles, in particular, this article: Acer pictum subsp. mono. I am trying to follow what appears to be conventions of the WikiProject Plants. Admittedly I do not have a lot of information on Mr. Ohashi at this point other than what I found on the International Plant Name Index. A Google search reveals that he has authored a book or two and is coauthor of some of these papers listed in the website of [Ibaraki University]. Does that make Mr. Ohashi notable? At this point in time I would be forced to say no, but I have not had a lot of time to research the topic either. I would not stand in the way of a deletion though. When I have more content I can recreate the article.imars (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and Close - Due to recent edits, this article would no longer seem to lack sources to establish notability. It will still need cleanup, but I will take responsibility for tagging it. Cheers. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not first or last author on papers with most citations, work is indistinguishable from the average botanist. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 22:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ohashi is a published author (see author citation (botany)) of plant taxa. IPNI lists his author abbreviation as H.Ohashi, and the database includes 680 taxa described by him. Certainly notable. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rkitko - 680 taxa most certainly isn't "average". Guettarda (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are mistaken. Most of the 680 taxa in IPNI under H.Ohashi are renames of already described species or subspecies. He did not describe them. Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does that really make a difference? It's still a rather singular achievement. Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. We already have a few links incoming from the botanist abbreviation redirect that I just created: Special:WhatLinksHere/H.Ohashi. With as many taxonomic revisions this author has been included in, it's likely we'll have more as we create more plant species articles. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sounds like a directory, which Wikipedia is Not. It takes secondary sources to confirm notability, not inferences based on querying a specialized database. Abductive (reasoning) 07:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Airways Flight 2495[edit]

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

See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:AIRCRASH. Pretty much a minor incident. No one was injured in it and the plane didn't crash anywhere, but stopped on EMAS. Ilyushka ☃^Talk!_Contribs 08:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No injuries, doesn't appear to be anything more than an aborted takeoff- they happen, they're forgotten. Delete as (luckily) failing WP:AIRCRASH. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything that happens to an airliner should not have its own article. Glad no one was hurt. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An aborted take off can happen anytime anywhere, and may NOT make much of a difference unless you lose your job for being late... -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. Already has a sentence at the article about the airport, as is not a significant incident in the history of the airline, so there is no point to merging this anywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly violates WP:AIRCRASH. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete for no indication of notability whatsoever. Blodance the Seeker 11:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An aborted takeoff (as happened in this case) does not grant notability. (Also, I love how, according to the infobox, it happened tomorrow.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might I recommend that we wait to determine delete until the investigation is completed? Something notable may arise out of the investigation. I created this page to have something to work with following the investigation. Also, I believe that this is notable, as there are only 28 airports in the nation that have this safety system in place to stop an aircraft from overshooting the runway in the event of an Aborted Takeoff. ^[2]. To date this is only the 5th usage of this system since 1999. (See above reference)Cindrah (talk) 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an argument for including a summary of the accident in the article about the system, not an argument why it merits a standalone article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aborted takeoffs are surprisely common. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. If something MAJOR comes from the investigation then the page could be recreated focusing on the outcome. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Dr Mahendra Singh Arya, Dharmpal Singh Dudee, Kishan Singh Faujdar & Vijendra Singh Narwar: Ādhunik Jat Itihasa (The modern history of Jats), Agra 1998, p.284
^ http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6279

Delete "The pilot aborted the take-off at 16:13L (21:13Z)[1] due to an electrical warning light that illuminated advising him not to take-off." If they fit little (or big - I've not seen one) lights that tell you not to go up, they're expecting them to be needed. The first use of the arrestor system might be notable - the fifth is becoming a habit. The fact that the system is installed implies that it might well be needed too. (But at $1000 per EMAS block, I would hope not TOO often). By the way, I think this might be the sixth incident. Engineered materials arrestor system Peridon (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These 5 or 6 incidents should really be mentioned in the EMAS article. Mjroots (talk) 06:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking at the EMAS page on wikipedia, it references an aticle that detailed Alex Rodriguez's flight overshooting the runway. After attempting to access the article, it was not found. According to the FAA website, there have only been 4 accidents listed involving EMAS, this would make the 5th. Cindrah (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strictly non-notable. Warrah (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:AIRCRASH. Incident is adequately covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, per above. Crum375 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it is not notable and there are no deaths - the accident is still under investigation (at least wait till the investigation is completed) Whenaxis (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2010 (EST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woemu[edit]

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

Non-notable software product lacking GHITS of substance and with zero GNEWS. Product appears to be in Beta and not yet in General Release. ttonyb (talk) 07:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I aren't sure where i should be posting, but here will do just fine. I would like to speak on behalf of WOEmu, seeing as though i am AquaFiX, an administrator.

1. It is true the product is in beta, You can clearly see that by looking at our front page, found at http://www.woemu.com. You will also find that it clearly says "Open Beta", Meaning that anyone is free to come register and play.

I also fail to see how being "In-beta" is enough cause for deletion. seeing as though this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_of_Newerth Is clearly of a game in beta, and lacks much information, or you could say contains about the same amount of information as we do.

2. I fail to see how this is a non-notable software product. Please elaborate on what you mean here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AquaFiX (talk • contribs) — AquaFiX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – The article appears to not meet the Wikipedia for notability. Notability is not a result of the progress shown on your webpage, or status of release, but results from verifiability supported by reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep : While I agree, this fails the Notability criteria and the favt that NOT every game deseves to have an article a week after it's release.. I think we should wait a wee bit more.. Pardon me if I'm wrong.. --Rsrikanth05 0

Comment – Please help me understand how the article meets any criteria for inclusion. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Notability~~ : There are tonnes of articles out there that fail to meet the notability criteria of wikipedia. But they're still out there. The point i really want to emphasize here, is that this is a project that has been worked on for over three years now. We've programmed a server, and embarked on a client(for the game). It is possible to play the game by using the pre-existing client though. The problem that makes it difficult for us to fulfill the notability criteria, is that we're only a group of independent developers. Until our game reaches the thousands of players, and get's a decent review, it's never going to happen. Look at other emulator projects in the category. Several of them cite information directly from their websites, also failing the notability criteria. As it is now i think the underlying problem with our article is that I've written it in such a way that screams fanboyism. Although it was deliberate, I thought it conveyed some sort of extra depth, I will have to make a few changes to straighten things out.

Not to start a flame war, but with a developing game, isn't the best source to get information from the update/patch logs? Not some third party that doesn't know the ins, and outs of the game? Someone's going to have to tell me how to sign off on these things properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AquaFiX (talk • contribs) — AquaFiX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – The existence of other articles does not justify this article's existence. Each article must stand on its own merits. If an article cannot be supported by verifiable, independent, third-party reliable sources that support notability, then it may be too early in the game's lifecycle for inclusion into Wikipedia. ttonyb (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of notability. Notability by games is mostly before and around release, with previews, press coverage, reviews, rankings in charts, etc.. There's no evidence of anything like that for this game, in the article or via ghits. If at a later date the game is successful and becomes notable then an article can be created then, based on the reliable references that will be then easy to find. But now it's not notable. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is a sideshow when an article is unambiguous advertising, like this one: ...entails a journey in which you are placed in the front seat. Roles are completely player-made, meaning you could be a peasant, or a vicious warlord; although general gameplay revolves around that of ATITD and survival. You may choose to play for free on the official servers, Not being able to leave GV(Golden Valley), Or you can choose to buy premium time. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. If you search for "Wurm Online" you will actually find some reliable independent coverage: [67] [68] [69]. The wiki article is written in {{in-universe}}, but it's not really advertorial. Pcap ping 19:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*comment - the first seems to be mostly about how it uses Java Web Start rather than the game itself. The second is sourced from this article, so should be disregarded. The third looks like proper coverage but it's 18 months old so as a reference is probably of limited use. It's also in German so I can't tell how good the site is as a WP:RS. If that's all there is it's still not notable enough to me.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NTEMP and I was also able to find two more (p)reviews: [70] [71] And to preemptevely reject you usual argument: not being covered by CNN is not a reason to delete either. Pcap ping 07:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could someone please explain why an article seemingly about Wurm Online is named Woemu and we're being directed to another site? Someone another 15:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly seeing as we have Wurm Online here already. Uh, hello? Someone another 15:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Good question. Pcap ping 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This poorly written article appeared to be about Wurm Online, but we have another article for that somewhat notable MMORPG. This one appears to be a fork of some sort. Pcap ping 15:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional piece for a non-notable spin-off project of some sort (I would have liked to have gotten a handle on exactly what but I keep hitting 404 errors). Someoneanother 21:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the scripture we have here, I'd venture a guess that it was clone of some sort, apparently a reverse-engineered server software, because Wurm Online itself is not open source. They probably got served with a takedown notice. See these videos if you're really curious. Pcap ping 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that figures, too much of a coincidence that the moment this article springs up the entire shebang disappears from the interweb. Someone another 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom, due to a lack of significant coverage about this specific subject from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 3000 strikeout club . The content history remains intact for a merge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4000 strikeout club[edit]

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

Non-notable sub-list of 3000 strikeout club that simply doesn't get the same kind of coverage. The tiny membership is a big part of it, but plenty of media is spent discussing the 3000 K milestone (as one of the big 4 automatic Hall of Fame numbers, 3000 Ks, 3000 hits, 500 HR, or 300 wins), but this is just an odd subdivision like 3000-500 Club out of the 3000-300 club which really doesn't make sense. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 3000 strikeout club Make a subsection on 3000 strikeout club and crate a redirect from 4000 Strikeout Club to point to that subsection. The 4000 strikeout club merger should keep the 3000 strikeout club within reasonable size guidelines. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 10:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, but I've just been working on the 3000 strikeout club, what exact needs merging? Those 4 pitchers are already there, and their strikeout totals that show they're above 4000 are. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why I said to merge to include any extra information on there and then create a redirect as I feel 4000 strikeout club would still be a likey search term and this is also why I suggested a subseciton in that article. Also if the delete is done a redirect is created, I feel it will violate the duel licensing of this article up for deletion. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 10:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 3000 strikeout club - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article serves no useful or encyclopedic purpose; though it is technically notable, all of its info is available in the "3000" article, which incidentally has ten times as many ghits. Ma^t_chups 03:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I see no reason to have seperate lists on pitchers with 3,000 and 4,000 strikeouts when the former list includes everybody in the latter. On a glance, I see nothing that cries out for a merge; the pitchers are listed by strikeout order in the 3,000 strikeouts table, and there's already a mention of who the first pitcher to 3,000 strikeouts was. Most of the page's content consists of a wall of See also links, the majority of which are barely relevant. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the 3000 strikeout club; a 5000 strikeout club redirect to 3000 would also be fine. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bohdanow[edit]

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

I'm quite sure this doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, hoax? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a simple check of WP for the Sapieha family, and also of Google for Bohdan Sapieha, would have revealed plenty of hits. If it's a hoax (why?) it's a very good one. Why not simply mark it as a stub and unreferenced instead of AfD? A polite note to the author would have been appropriate. andy (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. I googled the title of the page, and got very little amount of hits, thus I said hoax(?). I have already notified the author of this afd. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete with possible merge to Ferdinand Ruszczyc, at this point. Andy's sources aren't talking about the subject of this article. There is a small town in Belarus, a much larger town in Poland, and a surname, all of the same name, but this article is talking about "a property in Belarus." Andy found a bunch of links to the family, which isn't the same thing. There are also a few to a small town and railway station in Belarus. Those articles would be fine. But a private property that shares the same name, is less clear.

The same editor has edited another [messy] article, Danielewicz, that mentions "In 1653 the 10,000-hectare big property of Bohdanow named after Prince Bohdan Sapieha[4] in Belarus were passed to Barbara, daughter of Prince Karzimierz Sapieha." It has a cite, but there's no link and I can't find it.

I did a few google book searches. Lots of links if you just search the one word, but all of them I looked at ~~appear to be references to the Polish one, and a house which was the subject of a painting,~~ again, in Poland. Searching for it with Belarus, a reasonable search I'd think, returns 0. I searched with the Prince Bohdan Saphieha and got 0 there too. Maybe there are sources in Russian or Belorussian. If someone with some knowledge can show those I'd change.

Please more careful before chastising other editors, in the spirit of WP:BEFORE. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that maybe the painting is a Polish painting, but it's of this property. That's kind of unclear, but this [72] exhibit appears to be about those paintings. I don't think that makes the house notable, but I would support a merge to Ferdinand Ruszczyc, which would necessarily include discussion of a manor. Shadowjams (talk) 08:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have as yet no opinion about deletion, but would like to point out that some of the confusion above may be due to the fact that the house was in Poland before World War II but is now in Belarus. An added complication is that the nearest city, Vilnius, is now in Lithuania, so it seems that a few of the sources found by the Google Books search linked above misattribute it as being in Lithuania, presumably because the prior sources that they are based on have described it as being near Vilnius/Wilno. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment form the author

Dear all. I followed Your discussion here regarding the Bohdanow and my "messy" article regarding Danielewicz. First of all, the Bohdanow was a private property and was during the WW2 totally erazed (as most properites in Belarus and Volyn/ Ukraina - before WW2 it was Poland). But the information about the Bohdanow and its owners throught the history can be found in polish book "Dzieje rezydencji" (history of residences) of Roman Aftanazy volume 4. Its printed in 1993 in "Zaklad Narodowy im Ossolinkich". I will here pas the link regarding Bohdanow in polish where You can read about it. Ferdinand Ruszczyc (he was the owner of Bohdanow) painted Bohdanow and You should be able to find those through google (in polish)...I did! Furtheremore, i cannot see that my input on Danielewicz is "messy". I face difficulties in creating articles since im not experienced user but i will learn in time. I would appriciate help here. The "messy" part is whole polish history, all I write in my articles are 100% checked information that can be found in several books and articles. Regarding the article about Bohdanow, I just started to make this article so it will contain much more pictures and information in the future.

Here is the link regarding Bohdanow: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?s=5d0bc02be5d1b2ddc53d876a15940149&p=25311126&postcount=2070 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camdan (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, You cant find link about Bohdan Sapieha? You simply google and its all there! In the english article about Sapieha family Bohdan is simply missing (dont ask me why). Check folowing http://www.google.se/search?q=bohdan+Sapieha&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGGL_sv___SE346 .

Furtheremore You find this information about Bohdan Sapieha in polish language on Wikipedia http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Sapieha_(syn_Paw%C5%82a)

Also, in the information about the Sapieha family on Wikipedia (in polish) You find Bogdan Sapieha in 4th generation (4 pokolenie). Following link http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiehowie

Another link that show Ferdinand Ruszczyc paintings of Bohdanow is here http://artyzm.com/list.php?lit=R

Here You just scroll down to "Ruszczyc, Ferdinand" and on right side u see the names of his paintings, including "Old house (Manor in Bohdanow)"

Would all those links be enough or do You need more? I use swedish version of google so maybee it is why I find all the information and some of You dont.

Finally, I would kindly ask You for help in my other article about Danielewicz. It seems that there is something missing but I do not understand what I have to do and how I have to do. If You need any assistance in matter of Polish-Lituanian/ Preussian history facts or families please feel welcome to write me. I see that i have "not signed" this post, I simply dont understand how to do that but im logged in as user Camdan. I appologize for that.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I feel this article should have a place here + as per Andyjsmith .. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE, care to say way? Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jack007 (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE, care to say why? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Notability is quite thin, but there are sources as indicated above, and I think the article can be salvaged. No harm in taking the time to make the attempt. I note, though, that if the notability for this site stems mainly from the painting, then a mention in the article about the painting itself should be sufficient. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If really pressed, I'd tend towards a weak delete; however, I think that this article may well be one that would benefit from incubation. Anyone game? Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think incubation is an excellent idea. I'm a weak delete above. If it stays, and isn't improved, it would be a ripe candidate for another nomination, since most of the keeps here I'm reading as tenative based on its potential. Incubation would be the same thing, except it might get a little more attention. I have the somewhat larger explanation of sources above too that I think is relevant to the Painting/Manor debate. It is easy to confuse the two separate topics together. Shadowjams (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pradyumana Khokle[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. 1 hit in gnews, hardly anything in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gscoholar returns two hits for "Pradyumana W. Khokle". Getcited shows 1 journal article and 2 working papers. He has been covered in the passing in mainstream indian media - indian express, business standard1, business standard2, DNA. I dont think this is enough to meet WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not familiar with finding sources for academics so I'm not making this comment specific to this AfD; a Prof at India's premier management school should be notable, but given that most management school academics focus on teaching and consulting as opposed to research, the standard cites bit might not be helpful. -SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i was thinking among the same lines after voting for a delete. research output in indian B schools is scarcer than worldwide (who needs research for teaching people to sell tooth paste for hindustan lever ;-)). WP:PROF looks like insurmountable for most of the Indian B school faculty. Since there is a specific policy for academics, can it be overruled for cases like these?--Sodabottle (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if he doesn't meet WP:PROF he needs to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Overrule? That may give the impression of trying to circumvent long-standing consensus on what constitutes notability. Why not also consider the possibility that academics who are primarily teachers are not really notable per se? What is needed here is to find something that sets this person apart, i.e. that makes them notable. This "something" can be lots of things: an award, election to a selective society, recognition for having had some sort of impact on the teaching field, write-ups in newspapers, etc. With all due respect, I would spend time trying to find something like this instead of thinking about how to get around the consensus requirements. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think i have given the mistaken impression that i am trying to circumvent the consensus requirements. Please note i have not modified my original Delete vote. I voted delete according to WP:PROF and am still standing by it. What SpacemanSpiff and i are musing about is how WP:PROF is difficult for academics/faculty in B schools (and especially in Indian B schools) to meet. Spiff was pointing out IIM A, in which the subject is a faculty is the "premier" (the number one) B school in the country and he is not able to meet Wikipedia requirements. I was just asking a honest question, can the policy be overruled (or is there any precedent) for specific cases. Hope this clarifies what is going on here. --Sodabottle (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Essentially, AfD is the process of overruling a motion to delete an article in that a consensus of "keep" will result in the article being retained. There are lots of possible bases for arguing a case, though WP:PROF seems pretty clearly to be the appropriate one here. You may be asking whether WP:PROF itself can be "overruled" and I would say the answer is probably "no", simply because it's been well-thought-out and provides really a very broad basis for claiming notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Article does not really make a claim of notability. A few GS hits, but no citations. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lau[edit]

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

non-notable, no sources. Fails WP:MUSIC ~DC _{Talk To Me} 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could only find 1 source from gnews searches. [73]. [74]. LibStar (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Language Art[edit]

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

non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. No coverage either. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 05:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coinflipper[edit]

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

Creating AfD debate for IP address 98.248.32.44. Rationale was "Prod contested by creator without improvement. Unreferenced game of doubtful notability." SMC (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game might be, and probably is, notable. However WP can't have an article without at least one source that discusses the importance of the topic. Just rules for a game is not enough. Kitfoxxe (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks to me like complete bollocks, but it might be something made up in school one day. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. I can't find anything. Hobit (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. kur ykh 00:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Wood (actor)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor for whom the article claims two IMDb profiles. Passes db-a7, but even combined these collections of single TV episodes and the like do not meet the WP:ENT standard of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," etc. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with deleating the page because the actor played a significant main role in Brookside from 2002-2003 and was one of the three lead roles in the spin off DVD. Also, although his character in Coronation Street is only classed as a recurring role his is getting more screen time as the storyline he is involved with progresses. Grrrreg 09:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Storyline over. (See also List_of_minor_Coronation_Street_characters_(2009)#Rick_Neelan.) THF (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - The storyline isn't over yet Grrrreg 12:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And whoever maintains List_of_Brookside_Characters didn't find Wood's role in Brookside notable. THF (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Grrrreg and actor meeeting WP:ENT [75]. Since article also notes his pervious name Greg Milburn, we have even a wider search available that gives us more with which to WP:Verfy his work [76], [77], [78], [79]. While meeting the GNG is prefered, guideline allows other means by which to confirm notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure what those links are supposed to show—they're all Google searches that don't turn up very many hits. Your GNews archive search is particularly instructive, since all that seems to come up are passing parenthetical mentions; these are as insignificant as a media mention can possibly be. No one's disputing that Greg Milburn or Greg Wood exists or that his roles are verifiable, but neither you nor Grrreg (the article's author) has indicated what part of WP:ENT he might meet. Obviously that'll take more than verifiability. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only intended to show that his ENT might be verified through a wider search, as the criteria required to meet ENT if failing GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A handful of minor guest appearances on British TV does not meet WP:ENT. Most notable role was as a loan shark with a few lines in a five-episode arc of a daily soap opera. THF (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Harvey (actor)[edit]

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

This article is a bit of a mess, mixing up British[80] and American[81] actors of the same name. Neither one seems to be particularly notable, though the former does have sheer volume of work in his favour. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I started the stub on the actor John Harvey in 2006 because he was a cast member of the film The Man with My Face (1951), which is John Harvey (I) born 27 September 1911, London, England, UK, died 19 July 1982, Oxfordshire, England, and his name was a red link (unwritten article) in that article. It would be a shame if the IMDb started deleting actors they think are not notable enough for mention. I see your point about the mixed details, however, and agree. I wasn't paying close enough attention when I created the stub, which led to erroneous information being added. Perhaps it can be improved. I've removed the info. referring to the American John Harvey and added more facts about the subject at hand. Something along the lines of "Not to be confused with" might be in order. Could be that a move to the title "John Harvey (British actor)" might help. FredR (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nice job fixing the article. I'm still not convinced he is notable. I just don't see a major role in a well-known film (minor roles in Tunes of Glory and The Phantom of the Opera look like his best shot). If he is kept however, there's no need for a page move - the American is a much more clear cut no. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see no reason why an article about this actor should be removed from Wikipedia, which should include all performers, stars, principals, minor performers and crew. Granted, ordinary citizens need no mention in Wikipedia articles, but those of stage, screen and television should be given proper coverage, even if they quit show business during the course of their life. This man, John Harvey, was a performer for most of his life. FredR (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's really hard to ignore a man who's volume of work is as vast as John Harvey. However, I am not convinced that he is notable per WP:ENT. Many of the roles he has performed both on TV and in film have been minor. I see no significant parts in any major films. Based on guidelines I see no basis for the inclusion of this article. Daa89563 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pr0metheus burning[edit]

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

Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. Previously deleted via AFD but that was quite a while ago so I thought new consensus was called for. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete - This band doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion.~~ —DoRD (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With the information in the updated article, the band may indeed meet the guidelines. —DoRD (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral, hard to believe it's been over four years since the last AfD and they still only have 165 unique GHits. I really can't find anything in a reliable source that could indicate notability at all. Good luck to 'em, maybe in 2014. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC) EDITED TO SAY: feeling roughly neutral now per ArmadniGeneral's discussion. I can't get too excited about a writeup in the local free alt-weekly; it's the nature of alternative papers to write about underground bands performing at local dive bars. We're talking about the type of paper that has ads for strippers and bongs in the back. However, I'll take the word of others who know more that the labels this band has released on are at least somewhat prominent for this type of music. This band seems to be somewhere around the extreme low end of notability, even in this genre. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: They have a tendency to be named as "Prometheus Burning" rather than "Pr0metheus Burning". Try Googling for that, and you will find 120,000+ hits. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tried that before the nomination. Didn't find anything usable for the article, just things like twitter, last.fm, myspace, etc. See WP:GHITS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Keep. Sadly, I can't find any independent coverage by any reliable sources. Criterion 5 of WP:BAND would be the most plausible argument to keep, but I don't believe Hive Records can realistically be considered a 'more important indie label' and even if it were the absence of outside coverage or other claim to notability would prevent me from !voting keep. J04n(talk page) 12:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep per the sources added to the article by ArmadniGeneral, particularly [82], [83], [84] and [85]. J04n(talk page) 08:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND IF "In addition to playing much of the east coast and midwest, the group has also played several shows in Canada over the years" can be proven true. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to being verifiable, it has to have received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source, per WP:BAND. Also note that the criterion specifies concert tour, not just "several shows". TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can someone define what "reliable independant sources" you're looking for to cite - when discussing tour history? How is a complete list of tours and shows played on the bands official site considered inadequate? --Syphir (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A list of tour dates is trivial coverage. Non-trivial coverage in a reliable sources would be something like an article about the tour in a magazine or newspaper (or better-known website). Additionally, the band's website is a primary source and, as such, is unreliable. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have located a source confirming at least one performance in Canada and added it to the article, along with many other citations. I have also located several promotional posters from Canadian venues advertising Pr0metheus Burning's appearance, however I suppose these can't count as reliable sources. Nonetheless we have confirmation that, as of November 2007 they had performed at least one Canadian event. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue really isn't "did they play in Canada?" but "has any tour received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source?".
Keep: First of all, anyone noting that this article has been deleted previously should note, as the nominator has noted, that the band has undergone developments since that time. Let us keep in mind that WP:N and its related subpages are guidelines, and are "best treated with common sense." Thus I see freedom to move around within them. Getting to the point, the band has released three albums on established, though independent, labels. In addition the article claims that they are working on a fourth (though it is uncited, I am AGF in lieu of third-party confirmation until it is available). I have spent some time tracking down sources for the article, and IMO have been successful. I have even located one article from the Pittsburgh City Paper dedicated entirely to Pr0metheus Burning, although it is somewhat dated. We must keep in mind the relatively-underground status of industrial/electronic music in the United States, thus the difficulty of locating an array of references from familiar sources. Just because something isn't popular doesn't mean it's not notable within the scope of its own genre. That said, I believe the article and the topic meet WP:BAND, criteria 1 and 5. Under criterion 1, the band has had an entire article written about them in the Pittsburgh City Paper, definitely a reliable source and certainly not trivial coverage. Further, the band's albums have been the topic of (at the very least) two reviews by Igloo Magazine and ReGen Magazine, which are popular and notable within the genre. Under criterion 5, the band has released two albums with Hive Records, and one with Crunch Pod, although they might be less notable. Hive Records may not be well known in pop culture, but it is notable to those appreciative of industrial, electronic, or otherwise "underground" music. (Additionally, with the release of Electronic Saviors it may meet criterion 10 as well, although we shall have to wait and see.) If this article is kept I would like to do a rearrangement/reworking of it. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Criterion 1 states multiple non-trivial published works—1 non-trivial article is a great start but falls far short. Criterion 5 states two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels—Hive is neither a major label nor is it an important indie. Industrial/electronic music is well-established and there are dozens of bands in that genre that are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia that have no trouble passing WP:MUSIC. If a band is so far underground that they can't pass WP:MUSIC, then they're too far underground for Wikipedia. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I feel ArmadniGeneral has done an outstanding job hunting down references, and I feel they should be adequate enough to keep the article alive. I don't understand how they fall short of being popular enough for Wikipedia. There are many artists of many other genres, even more underground than Industrial - who have been considered popular enough. How does Prometheus Burning differ? They have received considerable popularity within the Industrial scene. They have toured extensively, and have been associated with pretty big names on tours and compilations in very recent years. The references show that. They aren't too underground for Wikipedia - they're not a garage band playing shows in peoples' basements. Industrial itself simply isn't the most popular genre in the world. Just because you've never heard of them doesn't or they may never receive pop radio airplay doesn't mean they're not relevant to the genre at this moment. Also, Hive Records is considered a very important record label within the Industrial community - just about anyone who's involved in Industrial music knows what Hive Records is as far as I'm aware. It's very relevant and noteworthy. --Syphir (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it looks like it meets WP:BAND, no need to relist even. JBsupreme (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article now satisfies WP:BAND well enough for me. Kudos to User:ArmadniGeneral for his work in locating and incorporating the above sources. Gongshow ^Talk 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo Cheminformatics Toolkit[edit]

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

Reference review:

Home page- Reliable source, not independent of the subject
Sourceforge- Reliable source, trivial
Three Google Newsgroups- Not reliable sources
Depth-First- Blog, not reliable source
So much to do, so little time- Blog, not reliable source
Google Code- Reliable source, trivial
Charlie’s path to dEAth- Blog, not reliable source
Noel O'Blog- Blog, not reliable source
Three presentations- Reliable sources, trivial

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete (looks like an advert) Tedickey (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not as spammy as a lot of these software articles, so I'm willing to believe it's not an out-and-out advertisement, but this software is certainly run-of-the-mill non-notable. Like Joe, I can't find any significant coverage (and basically no insignificant coverage either, for that matter). Glenfarclas (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what Joe means by trivial, but the presentations are WP:PRIMARY sources. Pcap ping 02:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant trivial as in not significant coverage. I think that no presentations show notability for software. I didn't think of saying primary because I have only skimmed through that page. Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty new software and insofar it doesn't meet our standards for inclusion. The only secondary coverage I was able to find were more blogs. Pcap ping 02:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPCC chapter 2[edit]

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

something not quite right about this. Copy/paste? Politoman (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it all seems to come from (Warning:Massive PDF) right here, though the wordings may be different in places. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete (probably speedy) copyvio William M. Connolley (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's Really Thizzin?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/What's Really Thizzin?

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

NN album. V met, but single reference asserts "it has never charted": fails WP:NALBUMS, PROD contested Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unfortunately all I can find in reliable sources independent of the artist are tracklists (here and here) with the exception of this (translated from French) which is trivial at best. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 04:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It didn't chart, and it isn't otherwise notable. Yappy2bhere (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. non-admin closure Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Cox[edit]

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

There's only one Courtney Cox on this dab page, plus an impostor (granted much better known) with an extra "e" in her name. I'd like to see the musician moved here with a hatnote to the actress. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and put the third item you removed, Courtney Cox Cole back on the disambiguation page so "Courtney Cox" might be a valid search term for the athlete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. ~~People are normally not known by their first and middle names. Do you see John F. Kennedy on the John Fitzgerald dab page?~~ My bad; it seems Cox is her maiden name. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. There are two of 'em, plus the near match. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alwarraq[edit]

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

The only source in the article is the website itself and I can't find significant coverage for it. Joe Chill (talk) 03:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability; this perhaps could have been speedied under A7. Nyttend (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Rostand[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. no significant indepth third party coverage. [86]. note his French WP article is also under AfD at the moment. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial indepth third party coverage, including this in Forbes magazine and this interview in Journal du Net. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Eastmain.--Pink Bull 15:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Love Money (season 4)[edit]

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

This article is about a speculative future reality television show, with sourcing entirely based on myspace blogs. As such, it should be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL, until an official airdate and cast list is announced. Until then, there is nothing here that could not be covered in the I Love Money article. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is all speculation, with the only source being a myspace blog which was probably authored by the same person who created this article. Neutralis (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator User:Alan Liefting. (non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 11:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Qixiang[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Searching for sources is tricky here, because there is another Sun Qixiang who is a Major General in the PRC military. I don't read Chinese, but the sources I can read lead me to believe she is in fact notable, [87], [88], [89], and [90] which quote her as an authority on insurance in China, and there's several more listed in Google Books/Scholar. I get the feeling a Chinese speaker could find plenty on this woman. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just a matter of finding sources - the article also has to meet WP:PROF. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 5 of that guideline "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research." The article says she holds such a position. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. So its a speedy keep then. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legion of Doom (Batman: The Brave and the Bold)[edit]

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

The article amounts to an OR list of character appearances based on the assumption that a grouping of characters in one episode looked like the Legion of Doom (Super Friends) so they must have been the Legion of Doom. This list also includes a character that is only referenced in passing in one episode (Riddler) of the show and one that has to be assumed to be a reinterpretation of a LoD character (Fun Haus). J Greb (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another article in a long series by this author that merely duplicates information already better presented and more wisely located elsewhere. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR, unless some of it would be useful elsewhere, in which case merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be worth noting that the editor that created this did so by copying the appearance information from the "In other media" sections of the various character articles... - J Greb (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as with the other (now deleted) LoD examples this just reshuffles information which should already be in the character's "other media" section (conflicting with WP:SYNTH) but this goes one better as it is listing the individual appearances of characters who have appeared as a group. So bringing them all together here is not only WP:OR but it isn't even a useful (or appropriate) inclusion criteria. (Emperor (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, even if there is a formal grouping (which I don't think has been established) they could easily use any number of original or established names (Injustice League, Crime Syndicate etc). It could serve as a list of villains on the show but that is already covered by List of characters in Batman: The Brave and the Bold#Villains. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance Times[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this magazine. Joe Chill (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Versageek. Scog (talk) 08:22, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Svengali![edit]

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

Non-notable web series. Yet to be released, and google returns nothing but videos posted on assorted sites. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7/web content with no notability presented. Not even released yet according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, upcoming web serial with no assertion of notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Extra speedy delete per ^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Anna Lincoln 10:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:WEB. Joe Chill (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:WEB aspects of A7. Warrah (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Applied db-web tag on article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move Me (Gregg Allman & Cher song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Move Me (Gregg Allman & Cher song)

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

Non notable song, didn't enter in charts. Released only as a promotional single in North America Kekkomereq4 (talk) 13:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. feel free to redirect as an editorial decision Cirt (talk) 00:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holdin Out For Love (song)[edit]

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

Non notable song, didn't enter in charts. Released only as a promotional single in Japan Kekkomereq4 (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album title. It was a released single, so it's still a possible search term. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Dr Mahendra Singh Arya, Dharmpal Singh Dudee, Kishan Singh Faujdar & Vijendra Singh Narwar: Ādhunik Jat Itihasa (The modern history of Jats), Agra 1998, p.284

[2] ttp://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6279

[1]

[2]