Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 May 14 May >

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 redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP). Tim Song (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus song)[edit]

The Time of Our Lives (Miley Cyrus song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song. Charted at #51 in Canada but there just isn't enough third-party coverage to warrant an article at this time. –Chase (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Are you kidding me? Do you honestly expect there to be not enough coverage for a song by Miley Cyrus? Keep per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and more. Joe Chill (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of those articles pertain to the album of the same name. –Chase (talk) 17:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogcritics.org, The-trades.com, Commonsensemedia.org, and Sputnikmusic.com are not reliable sources. So that only leaves MTV, About.com, and The Guardian, hence why it is useless having an article for this song. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP) for now with no prejudice against recreation at the appropriate time. Miley Cyrus isn't Christ, and just because she released a single doesn't make it notable until it actually reaches a notable position on some country's chart. We don't have an article on The Temptations' "You've Got My Soul on Fire" for the same reason. At that time, reinstate the article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of coverage. CTJF83 chat 15:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you show me where? –Chase (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that information appeared referenced. [8] If any of those charts are notable, then they should be listed. Dream Focus 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The song did not chart on Hot Digital Songs or Bubbling Under, the reference provided did not contain such information. –Chase (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If a sound charts well, then its notable. Simple as that. With so much music out there, you wouldn't get on the top 100 even if you were not notable. Dream Focus 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The song has charted, making it "probably notable" (though not inherently notable) according to WP:NSONGS. With no significant coverage found for this song in independent reliable sources, I'm not opposed to a merge and redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP), as the sourced info from the song article can be stated in a single sentence (e.g., "The title track, written by X, Y and Z, reached number 51 on the Canadian Hot 100 in January 2010"). WP:NSONGS notes that an independent article is only warranted if it is "reasonably detailed", so depending on where that fine line is drawn, I'd be okay with keeping this too, preferably with additional verifiable material.  Gongshow Talk 05:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The song may have charted in two charts but it fails to have enough coverage for an actual article here in Wikipedia. With no track listings, no music video, no live performances, and barely anything on background and composition, the article will never pass "Start" class. There's no use in that. Everything mentioned here, which is about four sentences, can be mentioned in the article for The Time of Our Lives. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 17:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just because a song charted doesn't entitle it to have it's own article. Not near enough coverage to have stand alone article. No live performances, barely any composition and background. Doesnt seem to meet WP:NSONG ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 22:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article was created on the false pretense that it was "announced that it would be the third single by Miley" where no such claim was made. Now she's already releasing a new album. Fixer23 (talk) 22:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Time of Our Lives (EP) and copy any relevant additional content to there. I am not opposed to separate song articles by any means, but this article doesn't have much to merit a separate article, and it makes organizational sense to include it as part of the article about the 6-song EP which is named after this very same song. In most cases, an EP version of a single is always part of the same article. Though this EP does not appear to be a normal maxi-single type thing, it still makes sense to follow the same convention absent more content requiring a split.--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Redirect per comments above by Milowent. Plus i state that WP:NSONGS clearly suggests that charting alone is not enough information to prove notability. There's not awards and no critical reception or independent coverage. Also per WP:NSONGS notability aside there is not enough information to warrant a detailed article and it is unlikely that the article will ever grow to a substantial size. Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Anyone interested in userfying can contact me Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far-right politics in the United States[edit]

Far-right politics in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First off, this has no sources at all, and no effort has been made to add them. Most of these may be far-right, but credible sources are required. Without them, this mostly serves as a place to add one's bias against a politician. The title is misleading as well; this is a list of supposed 'Far-right' parties. Also, there is not 'Far-left politics in the United States' article. TN05 23:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The information found on the page is not sourced at all and it seems to me to mostly be original research.--Steam Iron 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing's stopping you or any other editor from adding sources. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It may be unsourced, but is there a way to save the article somehow (or at least move its information to another relevant page)? I know some things about far-left politics in the United States, and would be willing to contribute or start a page on that (though I would need some help, as I've never created a page or cited references before). 71.184.241.77 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userifying would work, and I've suggested it as an alternative; see below. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Appears to be a redundant page containing only a list of organisations. Perhaps we could re-direct the article to the United States section of Neo-fascism. -Reconsider! 04:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this either needs to be deleted, or renamed as "list of far right us political organizations". it mostly duplicates the category (with no content to justify it as an article), but thats ok for a list, as some people prefer list navigation to category navigation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. The subject is perhaps worthy of an encyclopedia article (and may well be covered elsewhere) but the "far right" label is too meta to be supported simply by an unreferenced list coupled with an unreferenced intro labelling certain belief systems like "nativism" to be "far right". The non-existence of Far-left politics in the United States is not a reason to delete this; if a good article can be made here, it can be made there. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a list, not an article, and declares itself to be such in its opening sentence. It is highly NPOV, and does not fit its title at all--I would have never guessed that this was going to be a list of parties and groups (why are individuals and incidents excluded?). The inclusion of the Nazi Lowriders only underscores the NPOV aspect, and following that link to our article on them makes me wonder whether that also needs to be addressed--it simultaneously describes them as "white supremacist" and allied with several Mexican gangs. If they're allied with Mexican gangs, are they really white supremacist? Is a biker gang really political, and as such, worthy of inclusion here? So, delete, as inappropriate and unsalvageable. No prejudice against an actual article (rather than a list) being created in this space. Heather (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nazi Lowriders is another article. How is your disagreement with the way that article is written relevant to the discussion about this one? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, labeling individuals as far-right (as opposed to groups) runs into issue with WP: BLP. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, if you don't agree with the inclusion of Nazi Lowriders, just be bold and remove the mention of it from this page. It's no reason to go to AFD over! Stonemason89 (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — This is a valid list. There is probably a POV issue with the title, which needs to be mitigated. Carrite (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I initially created this article as a stub and an attempt to mirror Far-right politics in New Zealand; the reason why I never got around to expanding it was because I was busy with off-wiki tasks at the time. If the lack of prose/sources is an issue, there's nothing stopping Toa Nidhiki or any other editor from adding them. My vote is Keep. However, if this article doesn't pass the AFD discussion, I would be willing to have it userified to my name space, giving me the freedom to expand it and then re-add it in the future once it's been expanded. That would be an acceptable outcome too, if I end up getting outvoted. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and userify until reliable secondary sources can be found. SnottyWong talk 01:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is a list of Canadian flags which contains no less than 73 non-free images, the most unfree page on the entire English Wikipedia (link). I could go through the article and remove them per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFLISTS, but then the article would become somewhat pointless as a list of flags really depends on the ability to view the images. Thus, this AfD is something of a test to see whether a page which horribly fails a core policy WP:NFCC, but would become pointless if it met that policy, should be retained. It will be interesting to see if Wikipedia's mission as a Free Content Encyclopedia is a reality or something that is of little interest to our contributors. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sections on municipal and corporate flags, but keep the royal, regal, provincial, military, ensign, and historical flags, these are very informative to the make-up of the Canadian monarchy and government. 117Avenue (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is a great idea, because it would remove practically all of the non-free content. In fact, I'm quite tempted to do this right now and close the AfD, but will let it run for comments. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Even with just the provincial and royal flags, it's enough to fill out an article on the flags of Canada. I think when we start to be coalitionists, it becomes a mess due to NFC. I can envision a situation where a list article only contains NFC and would need to be outright deleted. I don't think this is the one. Just remove the non-free content.-Andrew c [talk] 23:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete the non-required flags per comments above though i am a little on the fence about whether an article contain NFC can be justified.Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but delete the municipal flags. We should not have non-free flags in this list, and including just the free flags makes an incomplete list. This page is far to long anyways.--Svgalbertian (talk) 02:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework per 117Avenue's suggestion, and ensure there's no non-free content on it. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and explore properly the ACTUAL copyright status of these images, which there was no sign of on the ones I checked. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Blair[edit]

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

This article was approved for deletion in October 2009; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euan Blair (2nd nomination).

The article has subsequently been restored, without any substantive improvement; it remains the same farrago of trivia it was in the first place. The arguments that justified deletion in October 2009 continue to hold good; anything of merit should, as previously noted, properly be recorded in the articles for Tony Blair or Cherie Blair.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (8th nomination). Incidentally, isn't there a CSD for recreations of deleted content? Heather (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Possibly Speedy but I have no idea how similar this page is to the previous page. Anyway: WP:NOTINHERITED and Euan really is not notable except as the son of the former British Prime minister—a fact clearly borne out by the references e.g. "Blairs watch eldest son graduate", "Blair's son is to be deputy head boy", "What's Euan got that other boys haven't? Ask Daddy", "Blair's son Euan leaves hospital", "Inside Cherie's Bristol flats", "Ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair received into Catholic Church" etc, etc. Can the page be Create-Protected after deletion (if the consensus is to delete that is)? --Jubilee♫clipman 00:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument in the previous AfD still applies: Delete as a non-public figure. The only things that he is known for are that he behaved like a typical sixteen-year-old when he was sixteen, and that one of his mother's indiscretions involved his student accommodation. The subject has not sought publicity, or done anything that would have come anywhere near being notable if he wasn't his parents' child, so we should leave him in peace. The only bit of content that is at all encyclopedic is the sentence about the controversy over his student flat, and that is already covered in Cherie Blair's article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Tipton[edit]

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

Delete No evidence of notability. No reliable sources cited, and no significant coverage in independent sources found on searching. PROD and PROD2 were removed with edit summary "rm prod, notable actress", but no indication as to why she is considered notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although many "keep" opinions are weakly argued, we have clearly no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  06:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wet floor sign[edit]

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

Prior AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wet floor signs

  • Delete Pointless article. These signs are common, but there is nothing notable about them, by Wikipedia's standards. The one reference contains one brief section about signs, but no significant coverage of wet floor signs. The article is essentially about legal liability for accidents, and the connection with wet floor signs is minor, quite apart from the fact that giving such prominence to the legal situation in just one country is unjustifiable. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless and non-notable article - perhaps justifiable if there should ever be a Safetysignopedia. Agree that "Liability under United States common law" has got nothing to do with the sign itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee 23:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article explains the existence of these signs, which is primarily legal and is interesting in that right. I see no problem except a lack of supporting sources. --Erik Garrison (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would think any standardized (defacto or dejure) warning signage would be encyclopedic. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the wet floor signs have been pretty important in litigation. Tisane (talk) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This AFD is malformed because it does not cite the previous AFD in which the consensus was that the article be kept - please see WP:BEFORE. The topic is still notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Joal Beal (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be plenty of reliable coverage, and this is plainly a notable topic. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs expansion to cover the history of the sign and its use around the world. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Slip and fall. That's what the sources are talking about, not the sign itself. Abductive (reasoning) 01:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Charley Lynch[edit]

Result: Delete (non-admin closure), but the article was redirected to the Ultimate Fighter season eleven. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page is pretty well written, but shows no notability. Lynch was beaten in the first round of the Ultimate Fighter and was sent home; never shown again. He has not fought in any well known promotions, nor has he fought any known fighters. RapidSpin33 (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Pretty notable in TUF history by virtue of having a nasty injury. Not notable in the UFC, but definitely is in the TV show. Should be kept. There are certainly less notables out there as well. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So we should keep this article because some people will remember an injury (not the fighter) on a reality show? "Not notable in the UFC", that is the most important part. If Lynch would have won his fight and actually been on the show, this discussion wouldn't be happening. Also, I'm working on getting rid of all the non-notable articles. RapidSpin33 (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, it doesn't just have be notability just in the UFC, proper. It's if he's notable to MMA. He is, as a contestant to TUF, especially one involved in such a high profile incident as previously mentioned. Definitely should be a keep Paralympiakos (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • His appearance on the show (a notable show in MMA) and then his loss, then his injury. I count three notable things. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those were all the same event. I don't believe that appearing on TUF automatically makes one notable, but you seem to. I know actors aren't considered notable for appearing in a single episode and that boxers from The Contender have been deleted as nn. That's fine--we're both entitled to our opinions on that. Papaursa (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same event or not, there were still plenty of factors as I mentioned in my last reply. Also, this is fairly open to opinion, so I'm not claiming this as fact, but I'd say that TUF is far more well-known and notable than The Contender. Also, the actor argument wouldn't be too valid in my book. There are millions of actors out there, so we can't have pages for lesser-known actors, or we'd have about a million actor pages. Can you truly say the same for fighters? The inclusion criteria is far less harsh for MMA fighters, owing to their sheer lack of numbers. As such, getting onto TUF should be enough to warrant article inclusion. I'm not saying we should allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to have articles, but in my mind, The Ultimate Fighter participation makes one a candidate. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You made me curious so I went searching for the viewership numbers for the two shows. From what I could find, when on NBC The Contender drew several times as many people as TUF. Even when it was switched to ESPN it outdrew TUF. The problem was those networks want far higher ratings to keep a show on. From what I read, getting on TUF is now more about generating ratings than proven fighting ability--especially when compared to the first year or two. At any rate, I've said my piece so whatever others decide is fine by me. Papaursa (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough then. I wouldn't say we should follow the example of the Contender then. Just because there apparently arent pages for the boxers in that show, doesn't mean TUF should follow suit. As for the opinion that TUF fighters are selected for ratings, rather than ability; that's a little unfair. There are valid cases such as Kimbo Slice, but the majority aren't. Lynch is one picked on talent, as evidenced by his decent record against tough state opposition.

But yeah, I don't have much more to say on the matter, unless someone else asks me a question regarding Lynch. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still wanna know why you (Paralympiakos) think an injury on one episode of a reality show makes someone notable? RapidSpin33 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly this. He easily fits the description. As I've said; 3 factors, the TUF appearance, which is a highly notable show, his loss in said show, his notable injury in said show, which will be remembered for a long time. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one will remember Lynch's name, and hardly anyone will remember that injury after the season ends. His loss doesn't not make him notable, neither does appearing, for only a few minutes, in one episode of a reality T.V. show. Just quit arguing it, he is not notable. RapidSpin33 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They won't remember him? Says who? If in six months, you're right, THEN it would make sense to delete. For now, you're being far too reactionary. Let's be honest, he's got far more notability than Todd Murphey and Andy Ogle, that you created and it's a very well written article. Notability is there. If you want to relist this article in a few months, then go ahead, but for now, we should keep it. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm fighting a losing battle here. I still believe he's notable, but since it's 3-1, I'm redirecting the article to the TUF 11 page as I believe that keeping the framework of the current article hidden will allow for easy recreation, should it require so. I trust everyone is fine with that. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I seen your reasoning for redirecting the article and you are being subjective saying the article is "well-written." I looked at the article and there was a lot of stuff that is not sourced such as "baddest man in Minnesota." Plus the stuff from Ultimate Fighter should be easily sourced, but that was failed to be done. If you wanted this other to be kept, then you should have continued to source it and add information to expand it. But you seemingly threw in the proverbial towel per se and conceded defeat. Finally, it's not about !votes. Whether the article is deleted or not is based on the discussion. Now as far as the discussion goes, if you are going to use WP:OTHERCRAP, then do something about it. Don't complain about lesser known fighters having articles if you are not doing anything about it. With that being said, I am closing this discussion as the article has been redirected to the current season of the Ultimate Fighter. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs cleanup, evidently.  Sandstein  07:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disappear statues in tehran (2010)[edit]

Disappear statues in tehran (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I guess this is about stolen statutes, but I don't see how, even cleaned up, this is an encyclopedia article. — e. ripley\talk 22:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this adventure is in top of news in Iran and it have news in English & it article have history list and etc... in Persian wiki-ناپدید شدن مجسمه‌های تهران (۱۳۸۹)--Surena (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes i know wiki is not news, but this article maybe have communication with 2009–2010_Iranian_election_protests ,because this communication this article is an encyclopedia article--Surena (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any references from reliable sources that suggests there is a connection between the two? (If not, it's just your own speculation, which is not relevant to this discussion) -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need more???Amir (talk) 08:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good to me - nice work -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's always difficult to determine the longer-term notability of very recent events, but these events have attracted coverage around the world including in The Washington Post[9] and The Guardian,[10] which reports that Iranian officials have blamed "the secret hand of England" for the thefts, so maybe the statues will end up in the British Museum in the next room to the Elgin Marbles. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we'll need something to fill the room should the Greeks ever get their stuff back ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Needs to be rendered into proper English, a valid list about a contemporary news event. Carrite (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, see WP:NOT#NEWS. Abductive (reasoning) 01:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool University Boat Club[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage for this club, it could easily be merged with the university's page. —fetch·comms 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

Other university clubs have their own pages, despite similar lack of coverage in the press. I don;t see why this should be any different. Please see the page on University rowing (UK) for a full list of similar clubs that receive similar or less coverage than LUBC. Please reconsider...

user:Slide89 (talk) 00:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I came here wanting to !vote "neutral, leaning towards merge", but this article consists of three sentences with no refs. Fails WP:RS as such. Further, when we've merged club articles into school articles in the past, it results in undue weight, as the club that formerly had an article becomes a section in the school article whereas other clubs lack sections. So, delete. Heather (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There certainly are a bucket load of other University Rowing Clubs listed on the page cited by Slide89. However, WP:ATHLETE has clear guidelines for amateur sports, which this club probably doesn't meet. Most of the other University clubs wouldn't meet them either, probably, but e.g. the Trevelyan College article (to pick one at random) was created back in 2007, probably before WP:ATHLETE reached its current form? Also, look at WP:OTHERSTUFF David V Houston (talk) 12:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no secondary sources treat the topic. Similar non-notable student clubs have always fared poorly at AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pridgen cipher[edit]

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

I see no sources that confirm the notability of this character that appears to have recently been made up. IP removed prod saying "This entry is currently incomplete and WILL be completed. Thank you for your message." If notability problems are addressed I will withdraw. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It says "created in 2010 by Michael J. Pridgen, who created it for his own usasge" [sic], so it doesn't even make a claim for notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:V (among other things). Deor (talk) 13:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. If it's a created cipher that then becomes notable, and if there were sources to show that, then we might have something - but I see no evidence of that being the case. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional legitimacy[edit]

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

This seems to be something that can be merged with Constitution. Tim1357 talk 21:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Basically an unsourced essay that doesn't seem to require its own article. —fetch·comms 21:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, when I saw that this already had been nominated, I was going to withdraw it, but some other users have convinced me to let it run it's course. Tim1357 talk 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like to add redirect would seem justified.--Savonneux (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the last comment in the previous AfD, "the subject is very notable, the article as it stands is useless". Needs a rewrite, and pretty soon - otherwise we would might indeed be better off without. The topic is notable though and the rest is just work. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is so badly written as to require a complete re-write, and I have already done my share of that this week. Bearian'sBooties 02:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, unsourced essay, without prejudice to a sourced rewrite.  Sandstein  06:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per the above 2 commenters. David V Houston (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. obvious nonsense; protected against re-creation DGG ( talk ) 00:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nullo space[edit]

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

Complete nonsense vandalism, though unfortunately another editor removed the speedy deletion tag to that effect so it's come here. Created and deleted at least once already today. I42 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

the term is mentioned in Ender's Game and is often used to explain distinctions between astronauts floating through space — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.116 (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete independently of this AfD nomination by User:AGK. Non admin closure. I42 (talk) 05:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doxx[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. All sources are primary; no references in reliable sources found; no notable releases. I42 (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep/No consensus. There is a consensus to keep Tom Cat, Jerry Mouse and Mammy Two Shoes. The possibility of merging all or some of the other articles should be discussed on the relevant talk-pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cat[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Jerry Mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mammy Two Shoes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Butch (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lightning (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Meathead (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Quacker (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Toodles Galore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Topsy (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spike (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tyke (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

These are all Tom and Jerry cartoon characters, and all of these articles are filled with original research and personal reports. There's nothing that can't be said about most of these characters in a good one or two sentences in the main Tom and Jerry article. The only article that really contains anything more than original research is the Mammy Two Shoes article, which parrots the censorship/re-edit history of the cartoons themselves. There honestly isn't much to discuss about the character herself - in addition to or in further detail beyond the editing of the cartoons - in a separate article.

I'd suggest all of these except Spike (Tom and Jerry) and Tyke (Tom and Jerry) be redirected back to Tom and Jerry, with no merge (in fact, Tom and Jerry could stand to be pared down significantly to cut through a lot of muck and mire added by an obviously passionate fan. Spike (Tom and Jerry) and Tyke (Tom and Jerry) could be redirect to Spike and Tyke, an article on their short-lived cartoon series. FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- PleaseStand (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- PleaseStand (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close (is that possible?) and start over. I agree with FuriousFreddy on Spike and Tyke, and I would argue that Mammy Two-Shoes deserves to remain because of the controversial elements surrounding the character. Jerry Mouse could possibly have his own article because he was also used as a solo character in a Gene Kelly movie (his article doesn't mention that). The others could be merged into the main Tom and Jerry article. Joal Beal (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does there need to be a procedural close? I followed the guidelines for nominating articles for deletion as a group (really this is a nomination for redirect, but we don't have such a setup). I wanted consensus before I did this and got into some edit war with a Tom & Jerry fan. There should already be mention of Jerry Mouse appearing in Anchors Aweigh as a solo character. I don't see what would need to be covered in a separate Jerry Mouse article that wouldn't already be covered in the Anchors Aweigh article, since I'm fairly certain that's the only place he's ever appeared "without" Tom (Tom does has a cameo in the film). --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • , No, you do not seem to have followed the process described at WP:BEFORE. For example, all you've done at the Tom Cat article is nominate it for deletion. There seems to have been no discussion at its talk page, attempts to improve the article or contemplate alternatives to deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At very least merge the less significant characters, even redirecting some back to Tom and Jerry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Garrison (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the idea of a Procedural close has merit - in this case, it would be because this sounds essentially like a Merge discussion, which does not require an AFD. I can find no evidence of a previous merge discussion at Tom and Jerry, nor do I see one at any of the character articles, and - per WP:BEFORE, we really should have gone that route first. I agree that there's a lot of uncited material here, and much of it is probably original research. But before we go and delete these articles, including several (like Tom himself) that have obvious notability, I think we need to have a proper merge discussion that has no seven-day time frame, and that does not include the threat of deletion. A procedural close would not bias consensus on individual articles, if they came to AFD later on. It looks like the nomination is in order, so far as adding so many other articles goes, but the articles differ wildly in notability - and it's hard to say that they all should be kept, deleted, or what have you. It would be easier to discuss and evaluate if the nominations were separate, or at least more separate (two or three at a time, for example). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 23:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First, like I said in the intro, there's nothing to merge: all the content is original research with no encyclopedic merit, and anything that could be merged is already in the Tom and Jerry article (and much of that is going to be deleted out of that article when I get the chance to revise it). What is there to merge? That's why I did the afds. Second, with these sorts of articles, I know from experience; there's not going to be any decent discussion of keep/merge. They'll sit there until someone does something. I mean, these sat here in this state for years as it was anyway. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem here is that I can definitely see myself going Delete on some of these, and Strong Keep on others - which is an indication that this particular debate is overly broad. If you call the question at Talk:Tom and Jerry, notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation and maybe some others, and get a proper discussion going, then you'll have a clear consensus one way or the other. You might also find that you suddenly have other editors who are engaged in the process and willing to help. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per UltraExactZZ's observation that these cartoon characters are inherently notable meaning all subjects within the category are surely notable. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You just linked an essay, not a policy. Just wanted to point that out. So is the house that Tom & Jerry live in also inherently notable? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a nominator, you should be aware of Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates. This is perfectly acceptable in WP:AfD. And, I referenced UltraExactZZ's cite of WP:BEFORE which is policy. Another handy item to read before nominating. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I read all of that (I'd appreciate it if you took the condescending tone out of your voice). And yes, I still made the afd. Why? Because the articles need to be done away with, not improved, tagged for cleanup, referenced. Read them. It's full of personal reports from some child watching cartoons. There's actual encyclopedic coverage that can be afforded a subject like Tom and Jerry, but this isn't it. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 03:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Massive sources exist for this historically significant cartoon. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't an afd for Tom and Jerry. This is an afd for individual characters from the cartoon series, the same way someone once created individual articles for every character from Glitter. And I own or have immediate access to all of those "massive sources", and there's nothing in any of them that can be used for most of these articles. There is no verifiable third party coverage of any characters named "Meathead", "Topsy", "Butch", or "Toodles Galore" from Tom and Jerry cartoons. If you can prove me wrong and find anything, I'll shut up. They're all just personal reports. I honestly want to know: did you actually read any of these articles? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: After doing some research, I have no verifiable sources for the existence of the names "Meathead", "Topsy", and "Toodles Galore" for the characters identified under them. Unless someone can provide otherwise, I would like to modify my vote for those three to delete. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a cartoon where Toodles is identified as Toodles (see 3:11): http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1rb84_tom-jerry-springtime-for-thomas_fun
    And here's another (several textual references from 0:45 to 0:50): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmfnVxu2iXU I'm certain that the surname Galore is canon too, but haven't had a chance to track it down (yet). Ramapith (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into List of Tom and Jerry characters (yes, I know that's a red link), and cleanup. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 06:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all There are plenty of news reviews talking about the series, and mentioning the characters in detail. Mammy Two Shoes gets plenty of mention in books. [[11]] Dream Focus 08:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect the recurring characters, neutral on Jerry and Tom because there may be enough notability independent on the current state of their articles. The articles on the recurring characters consist mostly of either unsourced material or original research, and the long Appearances sections are just WP:TRIVIA and shouldn't be there anyway. There already is adequate coverage in Tom_and_Jerry_(MGM)#Characters for them, but I wouldn't mind a spinout List of Tom and Jerry characters. – sgeureka t•c 08:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tom Cat, Jerry Mouse, Mammy Two Shoes and Spike (Tom and Jerry) as these are major characters in this historically and culturally significant cartoon; good sources exist for these subjects even if they aren't currently being referenced. Mammy Two Shoes is a Strong Keep due to the controversy surrounding this character and the good quality of the article. Merge Tyke (Tom and Jerry) into Spike (Tom and Jerry). Redact and merge the rest into List of Tom and Jerry characters as per user:TorriTorri's suggestion. Andrew Oakley (talk) 13:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that we should Keep Tom, Jerry, Mammy, and Spike on their own and Merge the others into List of Tom and Jerry characters. They will still take some editing: Meathead is a mess and contains some inaccurate information. But that's not cause for deletion by itself. I'm not as passionate a fan as the junkie who wrote most of the articles, but as a moderately interested MGM animation scholar I still find them helpful to have around. Ramapith (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've dug up copies of Hanna's and Barbera's autobiographies, and I should have enough reference material now to write verified separate articles on at least Tom, Jerry, and Mammy Two-Shoes as characters that won't overlap with the scope of the article on the series. I've laready started revising Jerry Mouse. Can I withdraw those three articles by themselves, while we vote on what to do with the others, or should I procedurally close and start over with the more troublesome entries? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and rewrite). Tom Cat and Jerry Mouse are iconic cartoon characters. The Tom Cat article has potential for development and I would suggest that, while it should be flagged as needing urgent improvement, it should not be considered an appropriate candidate for AfD. DiverScout (talk) 08:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Notable topics for which there are many sources. The nomination seems overbold contrary to our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a consensus: Keep Tom Cat, Jerry Mouse, Mammy Two Shoes and the rest go in to List of Tom and Jerry characters. The only non-consensus is whether we keep Spike (Tom and Jerry) or push that into List of Tom and Jerry characters too; I'm not particularly fussed since although Spike & Tyke have had their own outings, these are rare; Spike & Tyke are generally considered to be Tom & Jerry characters. Can we call it and create List of Tom and Jerry characters now please? We can leave Spike's page alone and worry about it later once the list page is done. If there are no objections within 24 hours, I'll create List of Tom and Jerry characters and move edited versions of Butch, Lightning, Meathead, Toodles, Topsy and Tyke into that, then redirect those articles to their sections in that list. The major characters (Tom, Jerry, Mammy) will have Main Article: links from the list page, as will Spike until we form consensus on his article. Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of what List of Tom and Jerry characters should look like, I cite: List of characters in Heroes, List of companions in Doctor Who spin-offs Andrew Oakley (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like a plan to me. DiverScout (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Me too, but when coming up with List of Tom and Jerry characters let's not leave out Quacker, who seems to have dropped through the cracks (quacks?). Also curious about Tuffy, whom we haven't mentioned but is arguably next most important behind Tom, Jerry, and Mammy—he was created for comics before he appeared in cartoons, and has been in literally thousands of them. Tuffy presently has a Main Article and I think he should keep it. Ramapith (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, sorry, missed that one. I suggest that Quacker's main article is linked from List of Tom and Jerry characters since there isn't currently a consensus on the fate of his article. If a consensus later emerges on integrating his main article into the list article, then that can be done at a later date. Let's focus today on what we do agree on; tidying up the content-thin Butch, Lightning, Meathead, Toodles, Topsy and Tyke articles into List of Tom and Jerry characters and linking the remaining major characters' main articles from that. Andrew Oakley (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tyke should be incorporated with Spike, not List of Tom and Jerry characters.Ramapith (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good night... I've just spent a little time trying to fix up the Butch, Lightning, and Meathead pages to scrub some glitches (in particular, the strange and erroneous idea that Meathead evolved into Lightning). Then I went back to the Tom and Jerry main page and took a look at the shorter character bios there. Holy crap—these bios have the same errors and more (I didn't think more was possible!); a few truly odd choices (Butch and Toodles share a bio... why?), and I don't have time to fix them. So—not only does List of Tom and Jerry characters need to incorporate the present main articles for Butch, Lightning, Meathead, Toodles, and Topsy—it needs to replace the Butch, Lightning, Meathead, Toodles, and Topsy bios on the main Tom and Jerry page.Ramapith (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all to List of The Price Is Right pricing games. To the extent there is anything to merge, it can be done from the page history as necessary. Tim Song (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make Your Mark[edit]

AfDs related to discussion for this article:
Make Your Mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic is not notable to warrant individual article. Subject matter is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games article. Nomination follows similar discussions in related AFDs. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because enough precedent has been set with the other 37 AFDs for related pricing game articles that none of these are notable enough on their own to warrant individual articles. All pertinent information, sans most of the trivia, is already covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games.

Mystery Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the Nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Penny Ante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Phone Home Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poker Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Split Decision (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super Ball!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
$uper $aver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Time Is Money (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Walk of Fame (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging with List of Tom and Jerry cartoons to include the animator data was decided against due to the lack of any presented source for the information. Merging based on formatting issues at List of Tom and Jerry cartoons was rejected as Talk:List of Tom and Jerry cartoons would be the best place to determine any format improvements. A redirect doesn't seem necessary. — Scientizzle 18:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tom and Jerry cartoons in production order[edit]

List of Tom and Jerry cartoons in production order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's already a List of Tom and Jerry cartoons. Why is this here? FuriousFreddy (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Mariners[edit]

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

Non notable. University teams for mainstream British sports such as Soccer, rowing and cricket are rarely notable. They usually hold little interest even in their own institution. American Football in the UK is niche interest. Article has no references, largely because there aren't any. Googling Greenwich Mariners returns only websites related to the team and their rivals. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. British university sports teams are not generally notable. This team does not appear to be an exception. Pfainuk talk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasons expressed in all the other UK uni American football articles. There seems to have been a big drive by one or more editors to add extensive coverage of UK uni American football to WP back in 2008, when standards maybe weren't quite so exacting. The articles have pretty much not been touched since (this one certainly hasn't, and is now two years out of date), and as has been repeatedly pointed out, these teams simply aren't notable even within their own institutions, never mind in the wider world..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG with one google news hit. Article is concerned with an amateur unversity sports team, which has no claims to notability. The team plays a sport which is only of minimal notability within the UK and would not be considered even remotely notable within the wider American Football frame either. UK American football teams are nothing like US college teams, they seem essentially little more than social clubs. Although the deletion of other university UK American football teams should not be taken as a suitable reason for deleting this article, there seems to be nothing distinguishing Worcester from any other UK university team. Fenix down (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your analysis of UK university sport is spot on. I think probably everything that a non-UK reader needs to know about UK university sport can be summed up by the fact that, when I was a first-year student, one of my flatmates made it onto the university's American football team, but had to drop out because, with sports teams receiving pretty much no money from the university, the players had to provide their own equipment and he couldn't afford to buy a set of pads. It's hard to imagine Mark Ingram, Jr. having to scrape together the money to buy his own helmet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reason to make an exception for this subject at this time. Perhaps in the future should more independent sources arise, this would be a better candidate. Try another Wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. — Timneu22 · talk 21:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrows Of Stephen[edit]

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

This article does nothing to convey the importance of the material, it simply details the synopsis of the play. Suggest that this page be userfied until it can be fixed. I'm not exactly sure if I can find reviews on this play. It appears that I cannot. In any case, as written it is not encyclopedic. Would love to see this userfied and then brought back from the dead. This is a weak AFD; I apologize. — Timneu22 · talk 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Plenty of reviews available in Google News Archive [12] [13] [14][15] for starters. Notability is established. Should be easy enough to fix up the article, no need to delete. Thparkth (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I said it was a weak delete. I still am hesitant. What about reviews of the play in general? Not just one screening of it. I'm thinking about Shear Madness as a guide, here. — Timneu22 · talk 20:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reviews found show notability. To User:Timneu22 who asked "what about reviews of the play in general", I'm not sure what you're looking for. The various reviews cited all refer to different stagings of the play across several years and venues. If you're looking for a literary analysis of the play itself, that would be nice, but hardly necessary to confer notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw; since no one says "delete", we'll just keep it. I need to search google better... I found nothing. Oh well.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Tarantula Society[edit]

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

Unnotable. The Cobwebs and the Sorrow (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. [16] and [17] provide some passing coverage that goes a little beyond just being mentioned, but the coverage is still incidental, and not significant enough for me to be swayed to keep. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Non-Admin Closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia malamanteau controversy[edit]

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

No evidence of a real "controversy", no references to reliable sources. The only references cited are to discussions on internet forums, and Wikipedia itself. The whole idea that this is a "controversy" is something that was dreamed up by a bunch of xkcd fans. It's not like Wikipedia itself is in any sort of uproar about this; the only people in an uproar are the hordes of IPs and SPAs showing up here and complaining. The fact that something gets discussed on internet forums by random nobodies is in no way notable; Wikipedia edit disputes and internet forum discussions are not notable unless they become the subject of coverage in independent, reliable sources (see, for instance, Essjay controversy). rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A3 (Non-Admin Closure) Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to Post an Ad on Craig's List[edit]

AfDs for this article:
How to Post an Ad on Craig's List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

How-to articles are not encyclopedic; this article consists of pure OR. If you'd like to see a CSD for this type of article, see Wikipedia talk:CSD. — Timneu22 · talk 18:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal Solutions Group[edit]

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

Non-notable organization; spam; twice before speedy deleted, needs deletion and salt. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Right, why no speedy a third time? Salt it is... — Timneu22 · talk 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If deleted this way, even if no salt allowed can use CSD G4 from this point on and cut out the drama. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PR-101: Use Trade Shows to Attract Media[edit]

PR-101: Use Trade Shows to Attract Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a how-to article and/or an essay. It is purely original research, with a title that does not conform to WP standards. See Wikipedia talk:CSD for possible CSD criteria for essay and how-to articles. — Timneu22 · talk 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - no encyclopaedic content, a how to guide, an essay and from reading it likely a copyvio of an article from some magazine. Canterbury Tail talk 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no speedy criterion for this. :( — Timneu22 · talk 19:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Darn, there should be. Canterbury Tail talk 19:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Join the conversation!! Some of us agree this warrants a speedy reason, others do not. — Timneu22 · talk 19:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Utter WP:NOTHOWTO.--Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An essay of OR and unreadable gush. Used correctly, conferences can be a free ticket to media coverage of your company. Be sure to leverage your hard work and noteworthy participation to keep yourself in front of your target audience by making a serious commitment to doing some public relations outreach before, during, and after these events to maximize your return on investment -- it's not hard and it's not expensive. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stratton Rawson[edit]

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

Film producer who does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Although the station WNED-FM does meet notability guidelines, notability is not inherited. Claritas (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you consider Buffalo News an RS?[18] Or the book references here?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that the Buffalo News is a local newspaper, and thus may not meet the WP:RS guidelines. He's mentioned in some publications, but hasn't recieved any significant coverage.Claritas (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes!! That is a rather incorrect "presumption" to share. Had you thought to first look at the Wikipedia artricle about that publication, you would have learned that the Buffalo News was founded in 1873 and that it is both the primary newspaper of the Buffalo – Niagara Falls metropolitan area, and the area's only daily newspaper. You would have learned that Buffalo News founded and formerly owned the WBEN television and radio stations, which are now WIVB (Channel 4), WBEN (930), WYRK (106.5) and WTSS (102.5), respectively. You would have learned that journalists from the Buffalo News have won three Pulitzer Prizes. And you would have learned that in 2009 Buffalo News was listed 52nd among the 100 top newspapers in the entire US by circulation... and that it has consistantly held that ranking for many years.[19] Nope. Not exactly a neighborhood gazette. The Buffalo News amply meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. And if Rawson gets continued coverage in that honored publication for over 10 years... and other sources as well.. and is written of in multiple books....? Yup. He's notable... even if we may never have heard of him before this AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schmidt has a good point. I would suggest to nom that he do a better job of following the requirements of wp:before. I note that he said he could not find significant coverage in reliable sources, but given the above -- which one can find with just a few clicks of a mouse -- I'm not sure how he is conducting his search.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established, and apparently cannot be. The cited NYT article does not mention him. After the end of that article, there is some extra junk that simply lists data of a few movies - that where his name appears. The Buffalo News external link leads to a page on which Rawson's name does not appear. As far as I can tell, he IS a person who works in film and broadcast media, but that in itself is not notable. ike9898 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schimdt.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Schimdt. Evalpor (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's certainly not an obvious case, but the Buffalo News coverage pushes him over the notability fence from my point of view. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fairly significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so it passes WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Myers[edit]

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

Non-notable U.S. theatrical actor. Does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Joal Beal (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Non-notable actor with no credible claim of notability in the article. All theatre credits are from community theatre troupes. Steamroller Assault (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I counted a total of four roles performed in two Chicago-area community theater groups. The possibility of any actor with this resume making any significant cultural impact seems nil. A reasonable Google search turned up nothing. The article is inappropriate and should be removed. Rudybowwow (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Evalpor (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD A7 Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Nomura[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated article, speedily deleted 3 times under G2 (2x) and G3. No changes in article. Should be deleted and salted. GregJackP (talk) 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: No need for AFD. No notability asserted. Deleted and Salted. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Kelly[edit]

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

Looks like this article is being used to give this person coverage. Running for a state's congress doesn't make the person notable. NOTYET seems to apply here; there's no notability at this time. — Timneu22 · talk 16:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Editorially redirecting to private property.  Sandstein  07:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Private property sign[edit]

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

Nonsense / vandalism. I've tried both speedying and redirecting but other editors keep reverting. No doubt they think it's funny. andy (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep though we may choose to not keep the article in its current condition, the subject is worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, why would Wet floor sign exist, for instance. Just for the record, nominator, I didn't revert because I thought it was funny (what's makes you think it's funny?), I reverted because either you or another editor added a speedy tag after an editor who didn't create the page had contested speedy deletion. Once the speedy deletion tag is contested by an editor who didn't create the page, with the exception of extreme cases, which this is not, the only way to get it deleted if you think so fit is to take it to Afd, which is what you should've done first instead of redirecting, which could be seen as a bold move, but considering the conflicting of ideas, trying to a reach a concensus or settlement, or at least asking either me or the other editor that reverted to justify our reverts or discuss the issues at hand would've been much better, and there may not have even been need to even drag this to Afd in the first place.--Once-An-IP (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the broadness of the subject allows opportunity to build the page into a well-developed article.--IslandAtSea (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you do the search properly there are only 388 hits, most of them utterly irrelevant and none of them indicating notability. Anyway the article is vandalism and could never amount to more than a dicdef. andy (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per IslandAtSea.--John Chestpack (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete No content here other than pure hoax and vandalism. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. If someone wants to create a similar article in the future referenced to reliable sources, there is nothing to stop them. Thee is no encyclopedic content at present. Edison (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, dicdef entry filled out with junk content, no sign of any potential to be anything more than that. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I agree with the nominator that the article is a lame attempt at humor, and that it qualifies as vandalism. For those who find this long after it was deleted, it began with an idiotic story about an "old witch" who magically created a sign, and became more juvenile as it went along. I'm gathering that it was inspired by another debate over whether to keep the article wet paint sign. Regardless of the motivation, a stupid and not at all funny contribution. Mandsford 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Poor attempt at humour. Not even remotely accurate. There is nothing of value to salvage. If the subject is worthy of an article, which I doubt (this sort of article is probably better covered by something such as Trespass to property), then it would be best started from scratch. Pit-yacker (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:PERMA It's covered in Trespass, I could see covering it in something that covers all warning signs too but I don't think it'll ever have "The complete history of Private Property Signs" from the dawn of civilization until modern day. --Savonneux (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Trespass#Prevention. I had my laugh, it passed. Someone should dig into the past and find out if Diogenes of Sinope had a sign in front of his tub. Really nothing to salvage here. East of Borschov (talk) 19:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Rhubarb. Not even fake sources given. Peridon (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources. No evidence of notability. Probably meant as a joke, but not even a funny one. Reading the above comments I see that the only reasons given for keeping are (1) "the subject is worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, why would Wet floor sign exist, for instance" and (2) "per the broadness of the subject". "Other stuff exists" is never a good reason for keeping, while "per the broadness of the subject" is very vague, and does not relate in any way to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's common sense that private property signs exist. You can find millions of pictures of private property signs on Google images. The sheer number of such images suggests that this class of signage is notable in its own right. Should we remove all articles on WP about common types of signs? The correct solution is to clean up the article and provide some images demonstrating what such a sign is. --Erik Garrison (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a dictionary entry followed by a gallery. Neither of which counts as an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about signs that say "No Trespassing"? "Keep Out"? "No Admittance"? Should they all have articles even though they all refer specifically to a tort called "Trespass against land"? Or just keep this one because it was the first made for this type of sign? It's just clearer to put it in the Trespassing article.--Savonneux (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if you've actually looked at the article, but it was never intended to be taken seriously in the first place. The part about the old witch who "cast a magic spell to create a private property sign"? The author was joking. It didn't really happen. And the stuff about the lumberjack who "had a secret house for hiding his extra wood"? Again, it was a joke. There was no lumberjack. There was no secret house. There wasn't even extra wood. He made the whole thing up. I think it was a test to see people's reactions, and it's gotten some surprising results, that's for sure. I can't think of a greater reward for his efforts then if he convinces someone to actually spend their spare time rewriting this to be a serious article. In that event, I'm going to be laughing with him. Mandsford 01:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried that - check the page history. andy (talk) 06:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article creator's only other contribution to Wikipedia seems to be this. Enough said. Peridon (talk) 10:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, ta. Just wondering if this stuff should be transferred to Uncyclopedia or isn't that done/possible? Peridon (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be to give it a recognition it doesn't deserve. It's not actually even funny, just schoolboyish and desperately trivial. andy (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for bringing up those instances. I think that the edits described above come right under the definition in WP:VANDALISM "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." I've gone ahead and requested administrator intervention concerning the creation of the page and the frustration of attempts to give fair warning and of attempts to make good faith efforts to cure the vandalism. Mandsford 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Go to the Uncyclopedia. TbhotchTalk C. 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this can now be speedied under G3. The article's creator has been temporarily blocked for creating nonsense pages. Absent a finding that this was not, in fact, one of those pages, I think that this discussion may now be closed. Mandsford 00:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Private property.--Headhold (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect No point in actually physically deleting the page, if someone can find encyclopedic information about the sign, they can add it to Private property.--Gordon41 17:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds OK. The b.s. can then be administratively deleted from the history. Mandsford 20:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bintmance[edit]

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

This is clearly WP:NEO, and I really think it is WP:MADEUP. I skipped CSD for AFD this time. — Timneu22 · talk 16:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Simpson (politician)[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails GNG and POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Kittybrewster ☎ 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weppons house wiston[edit]

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

This page appears to be patent nonsense or vandalism, but it was not CSD'd. I don't know what to say. This should be deleted, and Weapon house weston along with it. This appears to be pure nonsense. — Timneu22 · talk 16:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While I disagree with the nominator's reasons (the article is not nonsense, nor is it blatant misinformation), since none of the information in the article can be verified, including the fact that Philip Henry George Gosse (grandson of Philip Henry Gosse) ever mentioned this house in his Memoirs of a Camp Follower, and since the primary author's contributions to Wikipedia seem to be entirely vandalism, the article should be deleted. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It was "nonsense" to me in the fact that I had no idea what it was talking about. Was that English? Truly, I couldn't tell what was trying to be conveyed. — Timneu22 · talk 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources found. (I didn't.) If Philip Henry George Gosse turns out to be notable, a redirect can be created to that article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Someone rescued it; it does not resemble the original bad state. — Timneu22 · talk 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amr Waked[edit]

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

No real third-party indication of notability. Looks like this article is designed to give notice to the topic, not to cover it. — Timneu22 · talk 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even discounting the SPAs there isn't a consensus here. There may be a case for a merge discussion though, as pointed out by the final comment in the AfD. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Skibiski[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. The article has a number of references, but they are about the company and only briefly quote the subject of the article. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Would you mind pointing out specifically which statements and references are exaggerated, with a reference to back you up that contradicts the references listed? Otherwise these kind of comments above have no value.Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not see what is exaggerated about it, since every fact is backed by airtight reference. Recommend to keep the page and add more about Skibiski's innovations. Seems the references were all done incorrectly at first, now fixed. 450zuck (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - New references added in response to above comments Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Also familiar with the company and the bio is completely exaggerated. Most of the notoriety at Sense Networks is due to Tony Jebara (Director of Machine Learning at Columbia University) and Sandy Pentland (Head of Human Dynamics at MIT Media Lab). The PR is primarily fluff pieces, at best. I thought Linkedin was for resumes, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, the author didn't even bother to fact check the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC) — Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - May I ask what references you are basing that statement on? In MIT Technology Insider (August 2008) from Pentland's own university stated that "The idea for CitySense started back in 2002, when Skibiski, a software developer who has run a global hedge-fund conference for several years, approached Pentland with the idea that data being collected by mobile phones and GPS devices could be useful to economists." Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article you've mentioned appears to have at least one factual error...per the other references that cite 2006 as the founding of the company, not 2002.Groundtruth 1 (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You continue to make claims, but you have not yet provided a single reference to back up your positions. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Also, I don't understand why you changed his title to co-founder, when the company's most recent press release bearing Skibiski's name (June 30, 2009, as has been cited in the references) refers to him as "Founder and CEO", not co-founder. I propose that this would be the authoritative source on this matter, it being the last official release before he left the company. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Criteria: "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", Skibiski was principal creator of the idea that there is value created by analyzing large amounts of location (lat, long) data from mobile phones, and built the first large scale system to do so (proving the idea), and the first consumer app to make that data available to the public, Citysense. He is lead inventor on those patent apps. Citysense has been praised as such in many first tier news sources, NYT, BusinessWeek, Newsweek, MIT Tech Review. There was no notable prior art in the space before his patent apps and concepts were made public. Archived GNEWS on Citysense and Skibiski is more relevant, as he left the company in November '09. Appears to pass WP:BIO with recent edits. 450zuck (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was the original author, thank you Ttonyb1 for your assistance is making this conform to standards. I have never authored a Wikipedia page before. In updating this page, I hope it now conforms to the notable person standard, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It also said I needed to add one quality reference to have the page taken off the delete list, and I added several from sources of the highest reputability.
In the references I cited, which are independent global news sources, Mr. Skibiski is indisputably presented as a world renown thought leader and innovator. He has been featured New York Times many times for his notable innovations and patent pending technologies (he is lead inventor as mentioned above, which is referenced to the US Patent Office). The NYT published a photograph of him in the Sunday New York Times Business Section alongside a major article on his work and how it has changed the world's perceptions of large data analytics, among the many other times he has been quoted by New York Times on such subjects at Google's business strategy.
He is also featured as a revolutionary innovator in BusinessWeek magazine, where he has had his picture printed twice in the print edition, and has had a major feature article on his work, among several other print citations and quotes. Newsweek has also published a five page story on his novel techniques to analyzing data from mobile phones that was featured on the cover of the international print edition of that magazine. He lead a company that counts as employees the Academic Head of the MIT Media Lab, and the Head of Machine Learning at Columbia University.
Further, I have cited him as published in the recent Aspen Institute book "The Promise and Peril of Big Data" (the book is a reference recently deleted?). The Aspen Institute is one of the world's most prestigious think tanks. Generally only global political and industry leaders are invited to speak at the Institute (http://www.aspeninstitute.org/). His peers in creating this publication are Esther Dyson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Dyson), Hal Varian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Varian), John Seely Brown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seely_Brown), Joi Ito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joi_Ito) and Bill Coleman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_T._Coleman_III).
I believe this complies with your sensible mandate that he must have received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent". I also feel I have conformed with precedents set by similar Wikipedia pages at this stage of development. Thank you again. Petersongl3 (talk) 18:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Unfortunately, none of the articles amount to "non-trivial" coverage of the subject of the article. ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ttonyb1, thank you I will add further references later today. However, if Skibiski is lead inventor of these technologies (and it appears that according to the US Patent & Trademark Office, as referenced, he is), then these major feature articles in BusinessWeek, Newsweek, New York Times, indeed would amount to "non-trivial" coverage of Mr. Skibiski's original accomplishments. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The New York Times and BusinessWeek print editions both featured prominent color photos of Mr. Skibiski, which seems also to confirm the fact that "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.", which is the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia. It is a significant new concept, because it is the subject of major articles in NYT and BusinessWeek. The person is known for originating it, because Mr. Skibiski's photo is featured, in the case of BusinessWeek print edition, twice in the same issue. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith requires me to assume that you are not connected with either the subject of the article or the company referred to. Peridon (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC) (This comment refers to Petersongl3 not Ttonyb1)[reply]
  • Comment - I do not know Skibiski but many people would consider me an expert in the space. I am working on a series of Wikipedia pages. Petersongl3 (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC) *— 71.232.77.86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep - Like a typical entrepreneur, he is working on a stealth project right now and doesn't want any press during this period. As for originating a new concept and being widely appreciated for such, he spoke at Web 2.0 Summit in 2008, two people before Al Gore on the main stage, talking about his techniques for analyzing GPS data, showing graphs (theres one amazing graph on slideshare), people were wowed. 71.232.77.86 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The project might be in stealth mode, but the article is about an individual. Without verifiability there is nothing to support the article. How does speaking at Web 2.0 Summit in 2008 meet the requirements of WP:BIO? ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The New York Times, Business Week, Forbes, Newsweek, etc. references to Mr. Skibiski appear to be reliable and independent enough for me. Mandsford 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – None of the references meet the criteria in WP:RS. ttonyb (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are you really saying that those publications are not reliable sources for subjects in the field of business? There may be a discussion to be had about whether the sources have the significant coverage required for notability, but they indubitably meet the requirements of WP:RS. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that if this person were a VP at the company, there would be no argument. However, he was the sole founder of the company in the beginning, and the original ideas are attributed to him. This is confirmed because he is lead inventor on the company's three patent applications (referenced). 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would he be listed on the company's executive bios page if he didn't work there anymore? 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When the top of the charts ghits for a 'leader of world' whatever are LinkedIn, crunchbase and the company site, I start to wonder. There's a lot of facebook, 123people, flickr and such self-edited stuff following on closely. Good PR work, but makes me wonder, as I said. Not got time at the moment to go wading amongst this dross (from the Wikipedia point of view) but should get back to it on Saturday if work permits. Peridon (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to be a self-promoting article. Regardless, useful to compare the google search results with people in the article. Google search "Joi Ito", 184,000 search results; "Esther Dyson", 146,000 results, "Greg Skibiski", 13,000. This is a simple gut check that this article is not notable.Googsearch (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) — googsearch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I can do even better than that. Before 2008, Greg Sibiski NONE [24], Esther Dyson and Joi Ito lots and lots [25] [26]. I don't know why he gets coverage now. Mandsford 01:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BIO also specifically states that the person must be the subject of published secondary material. The person is not the subject of the articles referenced, the company is. They must have had a killer PR rep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs)
  • Agreed, however, check out general notability guidelines which states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Also, WP:SBST states that "it does not need to have ongoing coverage". 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Using Wikipedia itself as a precedent, compared to Dennis Crowley Skibiski's page is much better referenced. I feel minimum standard has been met. 71.192.46.7 (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – your assumption is incorrect, each article must stand on it's own merits and this article appears to fail to meet WP:BIO. See WP:WAX. ttonyb (talk) 23:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have made some modifications, and added on regarding Skibiski's initial theories and analysis techniques that lead to the founding of the company. 450zuck (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails general notability guidelines. References include many primary sources, press releases, and articles about the company that either briefly mention the subject, or do not mention them at all.  Chzz  ►  10:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I agree that Skibiski himself is not the main topic of much of the source material, but the material is on the topic of his ideas as founder of the company. General notability guidelines states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Several sources presented are reliable, independent sources, and in a number of them his ideas, as founder and lead inventor on the patents, are discussed in more than a "trivial mention". These ideas are notable and consistent across the sources. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – You stated that some of the articles do not mention him at all, could you give more specifics? I found two that don't, however they refer to specific awards the company received. It seems all the rest do, including several secondary sources listed in Current Science and Technology Sources. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – This article is beyond correction at this point. It's now officially a self-promoting fluff piece with several untrue statements that I'm too lazy to fix since this should be deleted anyway (e.g. according to the company's website, it wasn't even around until 2006). Relying on non fact-checked press and self-provided "facts" is dangerous (the company "trading" on the data). Dennis Crowley is far more notable and his Wikipedia page is a quarter of this one. It's clear that either the subject himself, or someone close to the subject is responsible for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC) — Groundtruth 1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – Groundtruth 1, and Telavivtalker, I have changed back several of your recent edits. You made changes to properly referenced material (that was nearly verbatim from the secondary source), and you did not supply any reference to support your changes, once again. Further, your unsubstantiated negative comments put the subject of this article in a bad light. If you continue to make negative changes without listing a source, I will report you. This talk page as well is a public document and appropriate comments should be referenced, especially in alleging negative things about a living person. This is very much in bad faith. Your opinion and experience doesn't matter. If it's not from a secondary source, it means nothing in this forum. 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Groundtruth 1, and Telavivtalker, consider this approach to contributing: WP:1XL, "if the page does not appear to be notable, and you believe it should be deleted, the best way to get the page deleted is to prove that. Simply having no references on the page may not be grounds for deletion; you will have to demonstrate that none can ever likely be found. As for articles with a single external link to the subject's own site or MySpace page, this may very well be self-promotion (as in the case of the garage band)." 450zuck (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I also removed your comment "now defunct". Again you provided no source of any kind for your negative comment, and I couldn't find one to support that. In fact, Citysense is on my iPhone right now. Also, refer to the Sense Networks website, prominently featuring Citysense. Admins, can we do something about this? This is a waste of time and it is becoming apparent there is bad faith involved. 450zuck (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on grounds of dubious notability and probable (self?) promotion. If he doesn't want publicity at the moment because of a secret project, I'll go with that too. Personally, I can't see how this thingy works anyway - how does the lat and long of a mobile tell anyone what and where people are buying stuff? I frequently have to pass through shopping areas (and industrial areas) without making a single purchase. Or is it that 'app' for finding which bar everyone's going to? (I don't have apps of any sort and don't want them - but can usually find a quiet bar for myself.) There are a few different things going about under the name 'CitySense', the top ghit I find being "An Open, Urban-Scale Sensor Network Testbed" from Harvard. Don't ask me to explain it... Peridon (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I met this guy at a summit, and he is definitely the type to write a wiki bio about himself - especially now that he is unemployed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nokia22 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Amazing how many people here seem to know him, and yet he appears non-notable... Peridon (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - some of which have not edited in years, but have decided to join this debate - 71.232.77.86 (talk · contribs).  Chzz  ►  04:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree that for a non-notable person there are a lot of strong opinions. anyway, skibiski's notability is debatable outside specialized tech realms but seems there is potential; "deletion of an article should be a last resort in the event that the article's topic is not notable AND has no potential for its own encyclopedic entry on Wikipedia" 87.221.113.74 (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC) — 87.221.113.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment – Just because there are opposite opinions about his notability does not mean he is notable. I have yet to see anyone pose a good argument that supports his meeting Wikipedia criteria. I cannot presume to know if there is potential for this article to meet the criteria; however, I can focus on the fact that in spite of all the SPA (and apparent COI) "vote" activity, no one has contributed to the article to bring it up to Wikipedia criteria. ttonyb (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources seem to check out: a fair proportion, although by no means all, of the 26 sources in the article cover the guy in detail, and most seem independent and reliable. As such I can only conclude that he passes WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Sense Networks. The articles are largely the same and though there are a number of WP:RS-appropriate citations here, tey almost all deal with the company/product and few deal with the person beyond a few quotes. — Scientizzle 18:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brantford's Own Annual Ribfest[edit]

Brantford's Own Annual Ribfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails to state why the subject is notable and is fundamentally promotional in nature for an event that will not occur until August, supported by references solely consisting of other advertisements. Deconstructhis (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Ribfests abound. There is no indication as to why this one is notable. In particular, this "annual" event has yet to hold its first one, and I can find no coverage in reliable sources writing about it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete nothing in gnews [27]. overly promotional. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing world trade and settlement[edit]

Changing world trade and settlement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as unreferenced copy-and-paste of a paper promoting a company; not an encyclopedia article and not capable of being rewritten to meet Wikipedia's standards. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix Race Manager (Game)[edit]

Grand Prix Race Manager (Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game that has been in production since 2001. Product has not yet been released and is due sometime in 2010 (according to the article) but according to http://www.gprm.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94&Itemid=41 there is no set release date. Currently the game does not have a publisher, see link above. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 12:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google web search returns lots of hits related to this, apparently well-established product, but as far as I can see none about the subject of the current article. Favonian (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Projects like this promise the earth and more often than not deliver buttski, WP is absolutely the wrong place for them. A search for the game's name plus the developer reveals a mighty 4 results. No, thankyou. Someoneanother 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. No reliable sources found. No ascertation on notability. Half-ads, half-peacock phrases. No actual development info. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of verifiability here. We're not a crystal ball. –MuZemike 13:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I realize that this is a controversial closure based on the vote count of this AfD, but I believe that the keep votes have a much stronger argument. The vast majority of the delete votes are actually either "delete and merge" (which is impossible per policy) or are variants of WP:JNN. A merge is certainly not out of the picture, but that is something that should be discussed on Talk:Death of Gerry Ryan. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 03:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that I closed this about 8 hours early. That was my mistake; the fact that I was closing it near midnight local time made me confuse the date. I don't think that really affects anything, but I just wanted to note that I recognize that now and I apologize. NW (Talk) 04:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Gerry Ryan[edit]

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

An unnecessary content fork for Gerry Ryan. Nothing particularly special about his death to justify having a separate article about it. The death is already adequately covered in Gerry Ryan. Nsk92 (talk) 12:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: unnecessary article whose prose can well be included in the main Gerry Ryan article. ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - It seems like Gerry_Ryan#Death covers this well enough, and I agree that it might be an unnecessary content fork. However, the article is very well referenced with sources specifically about his death. I didn't hear much about his death in the USA, but it seems like a pretty big deal in Ireland. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merge back into main article. Snappy (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This is a content fork of information that should already be in his article. If not, consolidate and merge. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is long and tedious but anyway. The death is not already adequately covered in Gerry Ryan in my opinion as it lacks any mention of the events at the end of the article such as the funeral. Both articles also contain 70+ references. I'm not sure if the statement "His death was neither spectularly unnusual nor so heavily discussed that it needs its own article" is entirely accurate in this case. The death is quite heavily discussed in the sources present in the article, is still being discussed by the media today (some recent examples [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]) and being discussed in terms such as "a seismic effect on Irish society" while it also apparently "practically brought Ireland to a standstill" in the words of one source.

"People die every day" - this is quite true but does the type of person who thousands of people from all backgrounds queue in the rain to sign their name over several days in two different locations die every day? Including queuing before the building even opens? [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] Comparisons to Princess Diana (over the top in my opinion but considering the reaction there are those who differ and there is at least one reliable source making that comparison). It is also not an average death that leads to a funeral being broadcast live on radio (a station which has never broadcast funerals) and online nor does the average funeral feature a specially rerecorded version of a reasonably well-known song by an internationally-recognised rock band [38] [39] [40] [41] nor is it an average death that leads to hundreds of people having a minute's silence in Ibiza. Most of this information is not in the "Gerry Ryan" article and it isn't even so much the death itself but the events that occurred as a result. The "Tim Russert tributes" article mentioned above was simply a list of tributes - actual events of this nature are not described in that article; it does not go beyond featuring the immediate words of various famous or notable people.

The definition of content forking is "the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject [...] As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage". There are two articles here. One describes the person's life. The other describes the death and subsequent events, including funeral, etc. (of which there is a related category indicating that this nothing new).

As for WP:N the following all appear to be the case here or am I mistaken? - (i) Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable (ii) Article topics are required to be notable, or 'worthy of notice'. (iii) A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines. "Worthy of notice" may be open to interpretation but having already mentioned several unusual events which do not occur as a result of the average death and a funeral which was certainly not average this does appear to be "worthy of notice".

Then, regarding the GNG, (i) Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. (ii) Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. (iii) Sources, for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple sources from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. (iv) Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

On the above (i) each statement in the article is referenced, nothing is original; "trivial mention" does not do the topic of the source material justice as they all focus on the topic in a great amount of detail (ii) secondary sources available? several in other languages could be found too if necessary considering the recognition the subject has at European level (iii) sources are multiple and reliable and among those used on more than one occasion to describe events over several days are the BBC and The Irish Times, "considered to be Ireland's newspaper of record" (iv) none of the sources used in the article are press releases, etc. released by the subject's employer so are not they therefore all independent of the subject? --candle•wicke 02:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This was an event in itself and too large to be covered adequately GainLine ♠ ♥ 10:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This is wothless on its own. Ceoil (talk) 10:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a notable event - it's just current news. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of Wikipedia's guideline on notable events does this refer to out of curiosity? WP:GEOSCOPE? Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group? Or An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable? Or WP:DIVERSE? (Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.) Are any of the many sources discussing the ethics of reporting death on Twitter helpful? [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] The result? [47] [48] Or the actress who said this would never happen in the United States? [49] The contribution from the psychotherapist? [50] Or tomorrow's newspaper coverage (including an honorary award)? --candle•wicke 03:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loomset[edit]

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

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Cummings[edit]

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

The article has not a single solid reference, is too short, is about someone unknown, and is a MEGASTUB (only 2 lines) Yet this Phil Bridger wants that the page should not be deleted.

Please check if the article should be deleted or not. SONI (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE This AfD has not been correctly filed. There is no AfD notice on the article. The link in the deletion discussions list goes to the article not here. Nor has the nominator had the courtesy to notify the article's creator. I have notified an administrator and asked him to sort this out. After which I will elaborate on why this is one of the most thoughtless AfDs I have ever seen. Voceditenore (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep A sourced article on the principal chair in the London symphony Orchestra, one of the the most important orchestras in the world. Anyone who holds any chair in that orchestra is worth a WP article, because everyone in an orchestra like that, or any of the other principal symphony orchestras, does have international importance. Any such chair is more or less the equivalent of being on a national team in the Olympics, and the principal of a section is equivalent to a prize-winner there. Not that international importance is needed for notability, much less than that. Its one of the disgraces of WP that we have insufficient articles on this type of subject. If we have to start with stubs, so much the worse, but it is a way of starting and there is no rule against that. I've put the notices on, but it does not take an admin to do that. DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to resort to invented rules to claim notability; the subject has been treated by secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 01:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not much else to add to what DGG and Voceditenore stated above.--Technopat (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources currently in article consitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Strongest possible keep Not only what DGG said. He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Music.[51]. He was the youngest person ever to be made Principal Cello of the London Symphony Orchestra (he was 19). [52] He has had a distinguished recording career as a soloist (see the reviews in Gramophone alone). [53] Note also that this article was created by an editor who created several articles on noted cellists, not by the article's subject. Calling it self-promotion, is baseless and even if it were true, it has no bearing on notability and is no reason to delete. I would also like to know how long each of you who opined "delete" actually took to look for further references. Voceditenore (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: he is a notable musician and his career is covered by independent media.--Karljoos (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as "this Phil Bridger" mentioned in the nomination. The nominator's main complaint, in both the two WP:PROD tags put on the article and this nomination, seems to be that the article is too short. How can that problem be fixed by reducing the length to zero by deleting it? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of words coined in popular culture[edit]

List of words coined in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this a list for the encyclopedia? UtherSRG (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's supposed to be a list, yes, like this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_networking_websites. Is there a better way of assembling such a list on Wikipedia? Mallyvai (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm well aware of list-type articles. I've written a few myself. But instead of tagging this for CSD, I figured I'd bring the discussion to a wide audience to see if this particular list is one we want. Hence why my listing comment is "Is this a list for the encyclopedia?" not "delete this". - UtherSRG (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subject already covered much more comprehensively at Neologism. I would suggest merging with that content and expanding that page a lot more than splitting off at this stage. Thus I would go for merge and redirect. -- roleplayer 09:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, and delete redirect to it. What is this nonsense? I disagree with redirecting: the redirect would fall under CSD:R3; who's going to look for it? — Timneu22 · talk 13:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although not speedy. This one practically has a "kick me" sign on its back, inadvertently combining three things that seem to irritate a lot of people-- "list", "in popular culture" and a reference to "The Simpsons". Regarding speedy, I'd punctuate the "What is this nonsense?" question as "What, is this nonsense?" or "What is this, nonsense?" and answer it as no. While I can see room for a sourced list of words that were introduced by books or TV, we're beyond the days of making stubs. If we do have such a list, it's important to note that there are a lot of words we use every day that were said to have been introduced into the language by William Shakespeare [54]. Mandsford 14:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of what I was hoping to get across with my "m&r" comment above, and the fact that the neologisms article covers this kind of subject without having to create a list of them. I see what you are saying regarding the "kick me" sign, and the comment regarding WP:OR below, and thus change my decision to delete. -- roleplayer 18:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems like it will inevitably be filled with WP:OR. I fear it will end up looking too much like Urban Dictionary. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if by popular culture they mean whatever meme of the moment or in the past that the editors like to talk about, well then, its got to go. but the truth is, every word ever created was done so within the framework of the culture it came out of, and came into common use within some significant portion of the culture, thus, a "popular" section of the culture. so it really should be a list of all words, which i think just might be somewhat silly here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically I think the problem here is not that the scope of the article is too narrow, but that it's too wide. There are thousands of words, slang phrases and figures of speech which were originally drawn from popular culture; that's sort of what culture is, a way of injecting new things into the shared consciousness. But of course Wikipedia's Sixth Law kicks in, so instead of an article on words contributed by Shakespeare we get one on kwyjibo and malamanteau. In its present form this is nothing but fancruft flypaper and we're better not encouraging that. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not sourced for one. It's also not categorized. This is also a broad list and I can see the argument arising: "If this word can be included, then why can't this one?" You know, WP:OTHERCRAP. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as indiscriminate on many levels; what is popular culture, what words are notable enough, and who coined them? Abductive (reasoning) 01:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Kofman[edit]

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

Delete. Improved references requested about a year ago but that isn't likely to ever happen. The subject is quite frankly not all that notable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all you need to do is click on the news link, listed above, looks like this: "(Find sources: "Jeffrey Kofman" – news · books · scholar · images)". Invalid nom, did not follow afd process. riffic (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
because an article looks like crap right now does not mean this is a valid reason to delete. AFD doesn't care about what the article is, but what it might potentially be. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. riffic (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pete Williams was kept because there was plenty of secondary sourcing on him. Abductive (reasoning) 01:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs a lot of editing, but there are plenty of sources (currently available although not in the article). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinated Catholic priests in Guatemala[edit]

Assassinated Catholic priests in Guatemala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of non-notable people; Wikipedia is not a directory. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 07:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has references, no solid reason given for deletion--all but one entry appears to be sourced at the time of nomination, and lists need not include only notable entries. Jclemens (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep -- These people are potentially martyrs, and thus potential candidates for eventual canonisation. I am disturbed at the number of redlinks, but perhaps the person responsible for the article will deal with that in due course. Most of the items have references, so that there is presumably material out there to faciliate this. Lists constitute a method of identifying what articles are needed, and encouraging their creation. I will add that the articcle was nominated for AFD within a mere 20 minutes of creation. This is grossly premature and suggests bad faith on the part of the nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll quote from the first sentence of Wikipedia:Notability: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." The millions of pages here are abundant with mentions of people who do not merit their own separate articles. Mandsford 20:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep List has reliable sources and WP:MULT. Taken individually, they might be non-notable as a WP:BLP1E. But, as per Mandsford's observation, the deaths add up and reflect a violent period in another country's history. The red links do not disturb me as history is written by the victors. In this case, it is easy to see that an American, Stanley Rother, has received verifiable press. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 & redirect. Opinion regarding a redirect was split. Since there was no merging involved, a redirect with an intact editing history is not required, therefore it's an editorial decision to be informed by WP:REDIRECT. Since the objections to the redirect centered around said edit history, and that this appears to be a plausible search term, a full deletion with a new redirect should adress these concerns. It would be advisable to incorporate the term "co-motherhood" into the LGBT parenting article in order to provide greater clarity & justification for the redirect. — Scientizzle 17:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-motherhood[edit]

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

position paper by WP:COI author UtherSRG (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD isn't a vote, so please explain your rationale for the "delete without redirect". I'm aware of the discussion about adding a new CSD criterion, but I haven't felt the need to comment on it because I don't think it'll go anywhere.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LGBT parenting; perfectly valid and useful search-term.--BelovedFreak 13:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no redirect. Unsourced POV soapbox essay from the very first sentence, with statements like "the spouse of the new mother will legally and morally be considered the father of the child, although he may not be the biological father." Leave the legal and moral judgments to someone else please. While it appears that "co-mother" is a term used in situations where two women have a sexual relationship and both participate in the raising of children in the household, and would be a logical search term, this rant doesn't need to be preserved in a history. Mandsford 14:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 band article, merge and redirect the album articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken (band)[edit]

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

No indication that band meets the notability criteria. Further there is a major contributor so theres also a conflict of interest. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on the subject (band's albums):

Party in Lyceum's Toilets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tales of Acid Ice Cream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Beppu Nights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Maashatra11 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - for the COI issue, I assume you are talking about one or both of the two editors who have contributed most to the article, but how do you know it's a true conflict of interest rather than just someone who is interested in promoting the band? I looked at the talk pages for the articles and users and there are some vague indications but not enough for proof, IMO. (Note: I agree that notability for the band is a legit concern, regardless.) DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about a sole editor which is also the article's creator, User:Meoneko. If you take a deeper look, you can see that all other contributors were trying to fix up/wikify the article.
In any case - Isn't "just someone who is interested in promoting the band" the exact definition of a COI? Cheers, --Maashatra11 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I guess "interested in promoting..." was a poor choice of words on my part. Maybe "interested in spreading information about..." is closer to what I was thinking. For example, I am "interested in spreading information about" Led Zeppelin so I am a member of their WP project, but that doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest. But you have uncovered some evidence that there might be a conflict of interest with this little band under discussion here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MeoNeko (article creator)'s comments Awaken / Gilles Snowcat are underground acts, therefore they don't match the notability of big acts like Deep Purple or Michael Jackson, this can't be argued. However, there are several facts that allow them, in my opinion, to have a place among the Wikipedia pages:

Notable facts: -Gilles Snowcat sang twice on stage with Al Stewart (the singer of "Year Of The Cat") in November 1999: http://home.scarlet.be/~ping9712/awaken-alstu99-engl.htm

-Google hits: -"Gilles Snowcat": 7350 -"雪猫ジル" (Gilles Snowcat in Japanese): 24800 -"Gilles Snowcat" + "Awaken": 2160 -"Party In Lyceum's Toilets": 570 -"Tales Of Acid Ice Cream": 248 -"Beppu Nights": 14.800 -"別府NIGHTS" ("Beppu Nights" in Japanese): 3580

Not notable but interesting facts: -The Awaken page has no promotional purpose: I try to use a neutral tone following Wikipedia guidelines and to include into the "Wikipedia universe" to make it useful with hyperlinks to as many Wiki pages as possible. However I'm still willing to improve the pages following your advices;

-All the facts are official and verifiable among Belgian copyright society SABAM or online shops like iTunes and CD Baby;

-Most of a song lyrics from albums are available online on several sites from several countries, on which I have no control. A Google serach can give you more light on this;

-Awaken / Snowcat are active since 1988, which means 22 years. This is no new act trying to use Wiki to promote itself;

-Crumar synthesizer user: the Crumar synths are now rarely used and I thought it was uselful to mention the musicians whostill play them officially nowadays, no matter their level of notability;

I thank you for having taken time to read this and I am looking forward for more comments.

Gilles MeoNeko (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on notability As mentioned earlier, band musican Fabien Remblier was a notable TV series actor in the 90's, on the TF1 channel. He played on a seire called "Premiers Baisers" (a page on the French Wiki exists). MeoNeko (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question- I suppose you're talking about yourself when you say "Gilles" or "Gilles Snowcat"? --Maashatra11 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer- Yes, I started the article and submitted, for the reasons I mentioned previously. After we debated about this for a few days, I still think that the "Awaken (band)" page and the related albums pages still have their place on Wikipedia. The "Gilles Snowcat" page, on the other hand, may look inappropriate since the musical information is already featured on the "Awaken (band)" page, and I would not be against its deletion if it was voted that way.

On the debate about promoting vs informing, the frontier is actually very thin, since once you spread an info about anything, you contribute to promote it in a way. When you spread information about Led Zeppelin, you offer them exposure that can is, in a way, promotion. That's why I try to keep the tone as neutral as possible. MeoNeko (talk) 01:29, 29 April 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) 00:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BAND + WP:GARAGE.--Cannibaloki 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has been updated with more references to several external websites. I still think that the Awaken (band) page has a reason to be kept in Wikipedia but I agree that it needs a strong revisin to match the Wiki criteria more efficiently. As for one more notable fact: Awaken is a client of John Sellekaers's Metarc. MeoNeko (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This musical group has appeared in a music magazine or a newspaper?--200.139.78.207 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes: at least Rif-Raf, Mofo, Prog-Resiste, Kwad'9, Town Miyazaki (Japan). I can provide scans of those if requested. Maybe other mags/newspapers but I don't have track of everything.MeoNeko (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice to those who are working on this article: If you can uncover old newspapers and magazine that provide significant coverage in reliable sources about Awaken, please scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing site. Then post the links to this AfD. Even if you already have an account on these sites, you should create another one if you don't want your real-world identity linked to your Wikipedia one.

    These sources must be independent of the band or its members. Myspace and Facebook do not aid in establishing notability. Press releases do not establish notability. Only coverage in books, magazines, or newspapers will establish notability. This coverage cannot be only passing mentions (eg. one or two sentences); it must be at least several paragraphs long.

    If reliable sources about this band cannot be found within the next seven days (by 20 May 2010), this article will be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Press scans: Here are the paper press scans you requested. You can also find them there along with webzines articles about Awaken CDs and webzines articles about Awaken's mp3 songs. I hope this helps. MeoNeko (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are these reliable sources? I never heard of those magazines (and neither did Wikipedia), and they are not in english. I am also noticing you that User:Meoneko acknowledges being the frontman of the band.--Maashatra11 (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • About these sources. Dear Cunard and Maashatra11, I can give you the offcial information about the paper magazines I scanned, just give me 2 or 3 days. You will be able to verify / investigate the official character of them. Thank you. MeoNeko (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the band's article, merge and redirect the album articles to the band. Meoneko has conclusively proven that the band have received significant coverage in reliable sources so they definitely meet WP:GNG. I haven't yet seen any evidence that the albums do. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge albums is a good idea. And the paper magazines Rif-Raf, Prog-Resiste, Koid 9 I mentioned have websites. Mofo, an equivalent to Rif-Raf, seems to have ceased publication. MeoNeko (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specific radiative intensity[edit]

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

Looks like it's either OR, or needs to be in some other article UtherSRG (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the time being; it's certainly not OR and it may be expanded/linked later. Right now orphan though.- Wolfkeeper 05:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. I just started to write this article and you try to tell me that it's OR. With the number of references I gave I don't see how you could reasonably allege that. It's actually very standard textbook stuff, as you would see if you followed the references. Maybe it can be moved to some more comprehensive article in due course.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some work on this page. It is closely related to several other pages, to which I have put in links, but it has distinct information that is intended to help the reader understand the geometrical aspects of the concept, which are not always made very clear, and are not discussed in the other Wikipedia article that I have so far found. Exactly how to assemble these diverse articles is not clear to me right now.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This business of trying to delete a page the very day it's created - and then complaining that it's orphan and has no references is... counterproductive to the Wiki effort, IMO. Certainly, warning the author that there may be issues is fair, but Sheesh! This looks like standard textbook stuff. The only question in my mind is would it be more appropriate as part of some other article, and, no, I'm not suggesting one at the moment. I think the material should be kept, quite possibly in this article, but if it were merged appropriately, that might work, too. David V Houston (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A bit of context would be helpful to explain the significance of this subject to readers who tend to get glassy eyed at the sight of the first Greek letter not a part of a Greek word. This launches into the mathematical physics right off the bat. A brief statement in plain English about the significance of the concept being explained would go a long way here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep or merge. This AfD is not in compliance with policy. The article may be redundant with material already in Radiance, but the correct solution to that is a merge rather than an AfD. It's not clear to me whether the best solution is to merge this article into Radiance, or to split off the material on spectral radiance from the latter article and merge it with this material to make a new article on Spectral radiance.--Srleffler (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather list for AfD so that a good discussion can be had, than try to tweak something on my own that I have no business tweaking. Hence, why my listing didn't include a !vote for delete. I remember a time when AfD stood for "Articles for Discussion"... - UtherSRG (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand; not knowing the subject matter you probably didn't have many options for fixing the article or starting a discussion that the right editors would see. Initiating an AfD so fast might have been a bit bite-y, however—even though this was not your intent.--Srleffler (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you can remember when AfD stood for "Articles for Discussion" then can you please tell the rest of us when that was, as I don't remember such a time? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The article was already well-sourced when it was nominated. The nomination seems disruptive, contrary to WP:BITE, WP:BEFORE and WP:CIR. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. As it is now written, it appears to have been fixed to a decent level. Bearian'sBooties 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as no policy-compliant reason for deletion was provided by the nominator. We don't delete articles because they "look like" something, or because the content might be better merged somewhere else, particularly when that "somewhere else" isn't identified. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows box[edit]

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

This article seems to lack notability and seems to violate WP:NOTDIR and/or WP:IINFO. It also seems to contain original research. Why is it important to have Windows box separate from Microsoft Windows and computer case? It's only Internet/techie slang, and a box doesn't have to be Windows: you could have a Linux box, a UNIX box, a Mac box, etc.. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 03:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to microsoft windows. The difference between an OS and a computer running the OS is too subtle for the wikipedia and can be covered at microsfot windows; most of the features of the OS appear on running hardware anyway.- Wolfkeeper 05:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the above and I think WP:NEO is also a relevant policy here. My friends and I used the term in college, but it really was just slang. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 15:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not as a neologism, but as a dictionary definition. The term "[operating system] box" was certainly in use thirty years ago when I was a systems programmer working with IBM mainframe systems, but it was applied to all sizes of computer, including the largest commercial mainframe computers of the time which were called "MVS boxes", so the article is not only a dictionary definition, but also an innacurate one. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Phil Bridger (although current usage in the plural is 'boxen') (; --Nuujinn (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G3 blatant hoax. If there were just one of these it might be worth giving it the benefit of the doubt for the full seven-day AfD, but with four from the same author we are clearly in fantasy-land and shouldn't waste any more time. JohnCD (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

School Kicks[edit]

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

I can't find a reliable source confirming the existence of this project, which is suspicious considering the number of notable people allegedly associated with it. Also, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywoods Divas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Assassination (2nd nomination), both for articles created by the same author, and note the alleged actors "Destiny Jones" and "Tiffany Jones"; Destiny allegedly appears in Hollywood Divas and School Kicks.

liquidluck✽talk 03:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as well-written hoax. Search for alleged director "Dan Schneider"+ project title "School Kicks" reveals nothing but Wikipedia.[55] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete because there are no reliable sources to provide verification that the project even exists. Crystal Clear x3 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delelte - In addition to failing to find anything via Google searches, IMDb is completely unaware of this near-future project with lots of big names attached to it. Additionally, the unlikely (for Nick) star-studded list would probably warrent major attention from the network (which normally doesn't hire from the A list). Their website is silent on this hoax. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For reasons voiced above. Hutch y2k (talk) 17:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G3 blatant hoax. If there were just one of these it might be worth giving it the benefit of the doubt for the full seven-day AfD, but with four from the same author we are clearly in fantasy-land and shouldn't waste any more time. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Assassination[edit]

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

I can't find a reliable source confirming the existence of this project, which is suspicious considering the number of notable actors allegedly cast. If the film is real, the lack of references means it does not meet the notability guidelines for future films. liquidluck✽talk 03:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywoods Divas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School Kicks, both for articles created by the same author, and note the alleged actors "Destiny Jones" and "Tiffany Jones"; Destiny allegedly appears in Hollywoods Divas and School Kicks. liquidluck✽talk 03:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails all the usual searches, so it's clearly not notable. Also, as with one of the creator's other faux films, nothing on IMDb and a Saturday release date all scream "hoax". - SummerPhD (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G3 blatant hoax. If there were just one of these it might be worth giving it the benefit of the doubt for the full seven-day AfD, but with four from the same author we are clearly in fantasy-land and shouldn't waste any more time. JohnCD (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywoods Divas[edit]

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

Contested prod. I can't find a reliable source confirming the existence of this project, which is suspicious considering the number of notable actors allegedly cast. If the film is real, the lack of references means it does not meet the notability guidelines for future films. Also, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School Kicks and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Assassination (2nd nomination), both for articles created by the same author, and note the alleged actors "Destiny Jones" and "Tiffany Jones"; Destiny allegedly appears in Hollywoods Divas and School Kicks.liquidluck✽talk 03:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as likely hoax. Search for alleged director "Michael Patrick King" + alleged title "Hollywoods Divas" reveals absolutely no verification that this project is even a whisper in the back room. [57] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails all the usual searches. Additionally, IMDb is completely unaware of this film which has a remarkably weird Saturday release (May 28, 2011, although May 28, 2010 is a Friday.). - SummerPhD (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Kraft[edit]

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

I nominated this article because of notability issues. The article is about a man who ran for insurance commissioner of California in 1994 and 2006. In 2006 he received 36% of the vote. I'm not sure this qualifies for wikipedia's biography of living person notability standards. The article cites one reference: a magazine named Capitol Weekly. The link is dead. He is also a grandson of one of the founders of Kraft foods and a graduate of Baylor university. Onefinalstep (talk) 03:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like the page was created as a political advert during the insurance commissioner race in 2006. Onefinalstep (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I, being the creator of the article, assert that it was not an advert. My extensive contributions to Wikipedia hopefully attest to my truthfulness here. I don't think I even voted for the candidate, although that was several year ago, so can't be certain. WilliamKF (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fixed the dead link in the article. WilliamKF (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsuccessful political candidate, never held any elected office. No coverage found about anything except his two runs for insurance commissioner. "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." --MelanieN (talk) 22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I feel the page contains useful information and see no harm in keeping it. WilliamKF (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a better link for the Capitol Weekly piece. On thing I found that confuses me a bit: according to a Boston Magazine blurb on the Kraft family,

    Son Jonathan has become familiar to game-day viewers as vice chairman of the Patriots, with broad responsibilities for strategic planning, and as operator of the Revolution soccer team and the $325 million Gillette Stadium. He's also president and COO of the Kraft Group, the holding company for the family's business, and sits on the board of the tony Belmont Hill School.

    If this is the same guy, focusing on two failed primary campaigns for state office seems to be missing the point. I'm not sure it is the exact same person...more sources are probably needed to figure this out. — Scientizzle 17:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Phoenix Publishing, Inc.[edit]

Dark Phoenix Publishing, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been re-created a few times after having been speedied. There is nothing to indicate that the video game role playing game company is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. I'm bringing it here because the article's author has been objecting to the deletions.

I'm also including in this AfD the pages Vampire: Undeath and Mage: Legacies, two upcoming games from this company. ... discospinster talk 03:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Swedes. Feel free to merge any usable content from the history. Tim Song (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Svenne[edit]

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

Pure dictionary definition. Please delete it because it's just about a term, and it's an orphan foreign term, it's unreferenced after over 5 years, and it has an equally good article at Wiktionary:svenne.

Please vote DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia isn't a slang guide, and it's completely unreferenced anyway. Unreferenced material can be removed at any time. Bootstrapping isn't a good article; it's not FA, it's actually start class, and it actually appears to be a badly written disamb page, it does not seem to be a good example of anything.- Wolfkeeper 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no valid reason for deletion has been given. It's not a dicdef. Saying it should be deleted because it's "just about a term" is like saying The Historian should be deleted because it's "just about a novel"; and saying it should be deleted because it's a foreign term flies in the face of WP:BIAS, as well as raising the question of what "foreign" can possibly mean in an international encyclopedia. That it's orphaned and unreferenced is a problem, but not one that needs to be solved by deletion. +Angr 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A valid reason seems to be given to me - it is just a dictionary definition of a slang term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It doesn't matter if it is foreign or not, it is still a word, not an actual, notable, encyclopedic topic. Send it over to Wikitionary where it belongs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Powers T 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed my vote. The policy has been changed so that articles on words are now allowed. I'm therefore forced to change to a keep.- Wolfkeeper 20:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're treading close to violating WP:POINT. Please stop with the reverse psychology and overwrought sarcasm. Powers T 13:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge changed my vote to maximise the chance of a decision from the review, given the lack of references.- Wolfkeeper 16:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to Swedes, or soft-redirect to Wiktionary:svenne. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article "Swedes" isn't that great to begin with, but it will not be improved by having this unreferenced piece of crap inflicted on it. If someone had added this content to that article out of the blue, somebody would probably have reverted it as vandalism. --Hegvald (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenced. Fails WP:V. Pcap ping 08:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dezithestic[edit]

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

Non-existent religion. Zero Google results outside of this article. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • If true it deserves inclusion, but for the time-being it appears premature...delete unless some more specific info can be gathered including locations and names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 12:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dezithestic consists of 4 afterlife zones. Heaven, Blok, Azarith, and Hell. The deceased is brought to Azarith, where they speak to The Guardian Of The Afterlife. No, no, NO! The deceased is brought to Azeroth, where they can choose to be reborn as an orc, troll, gnome, elf, or human. This also should not be confused with the highly notable Dezitheistic religions, which worship Desi Arnaz as a deity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pip Skid[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. Search is unable to find reliable and independent sources. PROD was removed without comment Andy14and16 (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep You have to be kidding. There are 5 sources on the page itself that are independent. This seems like a bad faith nomination. -DJSasso (talk) 02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article cites Exclaim! and Winnipeg Free Press already - Pip Skid's gotten the ear of the Canadian press. Chubbles (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The artist does not meet the criteria for musicians and ensembles. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere "flash in the pan", nor a result of promotional activity. It takes more than just a short burst of articles about a single topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. The evidence referred to above is the result of a burst of promotional activity at the time of the release of his independent album in 2004. The album did not chart, and nothing further was heard from this performer. The article in the Winnipeg newspaper is local coverage of a local artist, and the other magazine is a promotional magazine for music groups. All other references to this performer are merely trivial coverage. There is no international, or even national, coverage for this band. I can’t even find any information about this performer on Allmusic.com, and they cover virtually every musical performer. The artist has never charted, and has never won or even been nominated for any award. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A few thoughts in reply..."flashes in the pan" are often notable, and do not need to receive continuous historical attention to remain so. Notability is not temporary, and so one-hit wonders and briefly-popular musical ensembles are nonetheless deserving of encyclopedic attention. Exclaim! is not a promotional magazine; it's a third-party review site, and one of Canada's most comprehensive. Allmusic does not have very good coverage of Canadian artists because it is a US-centric publication, and though it attempts to cover this subject it is not by any means comprehensive. Charting a hit is something a particular type of musician does, or attempts to do; Pip Skid is not that type of musician. If he had charted a hit, he would be notable, but the absence of a hit is not in any way damning. Chubbles (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually Exclaim! is a large national music newspaper and not a promotional site. Coverage at the time of release is one of the ways that musicians gain notability. If they weren't notable news organizations would not cover them. You could start up a band and release an album, but that doesn't mean you would automatically get news coverage. You get news coverage because you are notable. Secondly not all those sources are from the same time period. One is only from a short few weeks ago and others are from 2001 and 2004. So this would be multiple instances of news coverage. You also mention that this coverage is trivial. Trivial coverage is considered a one sentence mention in an article about someone else. This coverage is all specificly talking about him and thus is not trivial. -DJSasso (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also note that his current album hit #4 on the Canadian Hip Hop charts on May 1st. So yes, he has charted. This is now added and sourced on his page. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and his Funny Farm 2 peaked #3 on the Canadian Hip Hop charts. -DJSasso (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And his previous album Funny Farm hit #32 on the combined charts. So that makes 3 charting albums. How many chartings would you like? Because thats not even counting his charting with any of the groups he has been a member of. -DJSasso (talk) 16:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also note his single "Alone Again" from his album Funny Farm was in rotation on Much Music (as seen here), a national station which satisfies WP:MUSIC as well. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As Chubbles noted, notability is not temporary, so significant coverage for a "flash in the pan" still qualifies as significant coverage. Here is an additional source, a Pitchfork review from 2004.  Gongshow Talk 20:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's arguments are by turns inaccurate (in the nomination) and irrelevant (in his followup delete !vote). Subject is clearly notable, per our guidelines. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friends4Ever[edit]

Friends4Ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album. Search is unable to find reliable and independent sources. PROD was removed without comment Andy14and16 (talk) 02:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Albums by notable artists are generally notable. -DJSasso (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key word is generally. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And with a couple reviews by major publications. In this case it is. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An album is notable if the album has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the artist or publisher of the album. This independent album has never charted and has never been nominated for any award. There are no 3rd party reviews of the album. And, sorry, but the artist isn't notable either. Andy14and16 (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Exclaim! review listed in the article is one example of non-trivial coverage. However, that looks to be it, so delete unless something more is presented.  Gongshow Talk 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Album by blue linked artist with multiple (I've added a second) reviews cited. duffbeerforme (talk)
  • Weak Keep This barely clears the relevant guidelines thanks to the additional source from duff above. Although my every instinct is screaming "this is not notable, this isn't even close," my every instinct would seem to be technically inaccurate. Multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save Sunset Cliffs[edit]

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

Contested prod; non-notable organization; notability not claimed; no reliable sources; most of article is copied verbatim from the organization's website MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I proposed the article for deletion, but the author of the article posted the following comment on the discussion page, which I took as objecting to the prod (the author is new to Wikipedia, so allowances must be made for not knowing the procedures):
The reason this page is being recommended for removal is because the founder of the group is running for governor of California and his opponents are trying to remove him from your site. Several times mr. aguirre was removed from list of candidates and profile vandalized by anonymous wikipedia editors. Not having a page for this organization would be a political abuse of wikipedia by wealthy campaigns. I am adding the Secetary of State voters guide which list the organization and several other references to the article. This group has over 2000 members.Sdpolitics (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Expanding on my reasons for saying the organization is non-notable: It appears to be a small grass-roots pressure group focusing on one city park, Sunset Cliffs Natural Park, which itself is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Contrary to claims in the article, the group does not appear to be an official city advisory group; the actual city advisory group is the Sunset Cliffs Natural Park Recreation Council [58]. I could not find the organization in a search of California corporations, and the group’s website [59] does not list any officers or board of directors. In a Google serarch, the only person ever mentioned in connection with this organization is its founder, Richard William Aguirre. In fact the "organization" appears to be pretty much a one-man show consisting of Aguirre. This article was created by a special-purpose account, User:Sdpolitics, who also created the article about Richard William Aguirre. That article has been deleted once as non-notable and is up for deletion a second time. Aguirre is running for office, and this organization seems to be his only claim to fame. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G12 and A7. Mostly copied from the website and no assertion of significance. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am writing from Scotland so have no axe to grind... if there is not a Wikipedia article on Sunset Cliffs then there certainly should not be one on the pressure group to save it. Delete , but I suggest (perhaps) at article on Sunset Cliffs themselves with a weblink to the group and brief discussion on the current debate to save them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I could write such an article but I am not convinced it would be notable enough for Wikipedia. The park consists of ocean cliffs which are subject to erosion, and there are differing opinions about how to slow the erosion, but IMO the arguments are of purely local interest. It is highly melodramatic to describe the situation as a battle to save the Sunset Cliffs. --MelanieN (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maverick Late Night[edit]

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

The creation of this article appears to be an attempt to promote a local television show produced by University of Texas at Arlington students. There does not appear to be any notability to it. I can't find any information about it except for some old YouTube videos. The article is also an orphan with no references, which may be why it has lasted so long. EMBaero (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfy to User:Hellataz/Jeff Schroeder and Jordan Lloyd. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Schroeder and Jordan Lloyd[edit]

Jeff Schroeder and Jordan Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably fails WP:BLP1E. Jeff Schroeder doesn't meet WP:N requirements. Article has deprodded twice and delete the article immediately. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Jordan already has her own article, so there's no need for this. Yes, they are a duo from Big Brother who also played as a team on the Amazing Race, but claiming they're a notable enough couple for a duo article is too much of a stretch. If Jeff becomes notable someday, then this could become a Rob and Amber type of disambig, but not now. Tarc (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Do not Delete - Interest in Jeff and Jordan as a pair is still incredibly high, and despite the lack of info in regards to what Jordan has coming up, Jeff has a new job in the industry that will be announced within the next month that keeps him relevant enough to sustain this page. There are many other pages that are similar in nature in regards to reality couples that are allowed to exist well after their exit form the limelight. Jeff and Jordan have upcoming project in the works. Also it should be noted that majority of contributers who have proposed deletion or edited this article have done so out of some sort of spite agasint the original creator of the page, not out of a real sense of adhearing to wiki rules.hellataz (talk) 8:30, 10 May 2010
  • Attacking other editor's motives, claiming insider info about future events, "other stuff exists", etc...are not really valid reasons to keep a page. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no attack on other posters, I have personally seen other editors of this page on other boards joke and boast about how they want to mess with this page, soley because of who created it. And as for claiming insider knowledge, i have not done any such thing, all information is correctly labeled with notes, refrences and sources and if information was still deemed a rumor it was posted as such. Hellataz (talk) 11:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.163.93 (talk) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete High interest in a current topic is NOT the same as criteria for an encyclopedia entry...delete... this belongs on a gossip site not Wikipedia—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are similar pages to this one that are allowed to remain, well after the interest in their subjects have faded. This entry contains facts not gossip, it is a true account of the rise to fame of two very popular reality stars who happened to begin dating. Their story as well as their careers continue as you will see in updates if this entry is allowed to remain. I honestly don't see all the hub bub over one small entry when i've seen Wiki littered with som much other irrelevant entries that are not being attacked or proposed to be deleted. Hellataz (talk) 11:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.163.93 (talk) [reply]
  • Comment if the page is deleted, it will move from article to userfy page will name User:Hellataz/Jeff Schroeder and Jordan Lloyd. It's easy to cut and paste the userfy article. Jeff has less notability than Jordan and they are reality show participants. Tell the admins to cut and paste into User's page.ApprenticeFan work 05:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really don't see why this needs it's own page. If Jordan and Jeff's relationship needs to mentioned at all, why not a section on Jordan's page? GreekSalad 08:29 16 May 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yashira Jordán[edit]

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

Seems to be a collection of mostly film festival entries (some of which seem affiliated with student-level work); does not seem to me to meet WP:BIO. — e. ripley\talk 17:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable student film director. Angryapathy (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No longer a "student" filmmaker. In 2003, her film The Gray Train went to festival[60] She had other films that went to various festivals from 2004-2009.[61][62] In 2009, her film The Heirs was announced in pre-producton.[63][64] In 2010 it was announced she sought actors for the film,[65][66] and a few days later its main actors were announced,[67][68] while she continued to seek aditional cast.[69] However, as a director she was quoted in CincoW and I did find an article that actually deals with the director and her film and which went into a little depth in Los Tiempos --Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PChess[edit]

PChess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable computer programme. The article appears to have COI problems, too. Joal Beal (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

there is no other example if you're a chess programmer looking for macintosh basic source code - if you can supply another example - please do. Johnrpenner (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to the unsigned note above. That may be, but does this have widespread independent coverage? David V Houston (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's exactly the point - it IS hard to find source code in BASIC for chess programming - that's exactly why it would be of use. Johnrpenner (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is the criterion that is is *popular* - or that it is *useful*?? Johnrpenner (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criterian is notability! Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if i'm a basic programmer - where's a good place to find this info then? Johnrpenner (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Not necessarily on Wiki. Wiki is meant as an encyclopedia, not as a textbook or computer manual. While, personally, I think Wiki deletes stuff that should be kept because it's interesting and useful, the fact is that 'interesting and useful' isn't the criterion used to decide what's kept. I can certainly understand your frustration, and I'd suggest you save your material in case you can find somewhere else to post it. David V Houston (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no apparent coverage in reliable, independent sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero news articles found about this program. Not notable. Traxs7 06:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you know.. TSCP (Tom Kerrigan's Simple Chess Program) started up just like this.. some guy just tried to make some well-documented source code.. a lot of other people ended up finding it useful. pChess is no different.. only TCSP has been around longer -- insofar as what you're actually getting usefully, as a programmer.. as source code -- it is the same. -- but it looks like i'm not finding myself in the right camp here.. wiki doesnt need useful.. it needs Notorious -- so i found: chessprogramming.wikispaces.com - which looks like a forum that would be more in need of something like this. more of use to programmers that will need this sort of thing. thx david for explaining things. go ahead and shoot the mule. ;-> Johnrpenner (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe could go here [[70]] Gerardw (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Rugby[edit]

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

College club team (not a varsity team) with no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There's no evidence this achieves any level of notability. —C.Fred (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How on earth does being founded in 1994 make it notable? I'm sure that we've deleted as unnotable cricket teams that were founded in or before 1794. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are a couple of hits for a Grove RFC in Grove, Oxfordshire, but that's not this Grove Rugby club. Changing the search string to "Grove City Rugby" (the name used by the references in the article) gets no gNews hits at all, and Google hits are for people looking to play rugby in Grove City, Ohio. I'm not even sure that the Oxfordshire club is notable, but this Pennsylvania club gets no coverage at all from reliable sources. Current sources on the page prove that the club exists, but do not demonstrate notability and are not reliable, independent sources. » scoops “5x5„ 03:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Scoops; no coverage, just because it exists doesn't make it a notable sports club. tedder (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted (CSD G11) by Athaenara. NAC. Cliff smith talk 07:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prozest Vito[edit]

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

Non-notable, obscure music project. Does not meet WP:MUSIC standards. Joal Beal (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails WP:MUSIC Traxs7 06:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was relist as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time for Annihilation because the presence or absence of an actual album name is important in determining its notability (see WP:HAMMER). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Papa Roach Live Album[edit]

Untitled Papa Roach Live Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, mostly first-party sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response That's the consequence of album leaks—hold off on information until the last possible minute and then promote the album. It makes sense, but it's a bit incongruous with the whole internet thing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Astonishing. Whereas I have become used in recent years to teasers being posted on teh Interwebs, e.g. The Blair Witch Project, this one takes me back to 1968 and The Beatles "White Album" when there was very little information beforehand, and I remember cycling in the middle of the night down to the local record store just to see the sleeve in the window. I remember paying my 39 shillings and 11 pence (£2.00) the following day on school lunch break to buy it, and wasn't disappointed. Some things never change, they just get recycled, perhaps. Rodhullandemu 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete direct violation of WP:CRYSTAL and i think its HAMMER TIME STAT- Verse 00:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above GregJackP (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm. Is this a deletion discussion for Untitled Papa Roach Live Album (which is the title of the discussion, but is a redirect without an AfD tag on it), or Time for Annihilation, the target of the redirect, which does have an AfD tag on it? Is theskunkno5.tumblr.com, the only source for the title, a notable and reliable source, and likewise independent of the subject? Does this run afoul of Ten Pound Hammer's Law, at least for now, or have other sources supported the proposed title? Time for Annihilation, which lists a number of refs, doesn't give a single ref that appears to be both independent and notable (lot of YouTube videos there). But I'm abstaining for now, as I'm not even sure which article we are !voting on here. Heather (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Question - in relation to the questions by Heather above, history has progressed to the point where this originally untitled album now has a title, and the original article has been moved or redirected to Time for Annihilation. Should there be a new AfD for that article, or is it legitimate to continue this original AfD? Looking at the edit histories of both articles, I can't quite figure out if this was a move, a redirect, or a big copy/paste operation. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Velasgutto de Ayala[edit]

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

Non-notable. Obscure object of an obscure foundation legend of a Castilian noble family. Subject isn't even notable in Spanish. I am unaware of a single English-language source that names him, nor of a Spanish one that gives more than passing notice in reporting the tradition. A Google Books search returns nothing, Google Web only returns Wikipedia mirrors. Agricolae (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not if such a legend received so little coverage as this 'man'. It is not the fact that he is Spanish that is the reason. It is that, being Spanish, he hasn't received the slightest interest from English-language sources. Even basing a notability determination on his Spanish coverage would return a verdict of non-notable. He gets mentioned in the 14th century family genealogy, an illegitimate son invented to connect the family to royalty. Since, the story has either been repeated out of course, or given just enough space to dismiss it. This is not notability. Agricolae (talk) 01:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a well established principle that what language the coverage is in is totally irrelevant. If he has received coverage in spanish language sources that is fully sufficient. (see WP:RS) enWP is merely the encyclopedia written in English. We cover the entire world on an equal basis, subject to the limitations of the predominantly English-speaking people here to find material. If enough people here could work with Spanish to cover the Spanish-speaking world in equal depth that would be wonderful , but in the meantime we get what we can. with the people we have and the material we can find. I was however very reluctant to say keep on the basis of a single source. But using alternate names given in the article, I have found some additional ones, and added them. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG may well be correct, but I think a separate biographical article for this person would not be appropriate unless we can find a reliable source that gives basic biographical details. For example, his approximate date of birth and approximate date of death seem to me to be a de minimis (and "fourteenth century" doesn't seem to be specific enough). I recommend that it shouldn't be deleted without consulting Wikiproject Spain, though.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 10:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Googling "Velasgutto" I gets lots of hits, but mostly duplicate versions of what's here, or a simple listing in a genealogy or ... Very little in Spanish. Looking under "Belasgytto" I see essentially nothing except copies of what's here - and nothing in Spanish. OTOH, founders of royal lines, need to be mentioned, although possibly not in their own articles. ?? DGG, if you can find resources that we can read and check (probably on-line), that would be wonderful (even if in Spanish). I worry that the print references you gave might only have passing references? If they are longer, could you explain what they say, perhaps? David V Houston (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let me address several of these issues. First, we are not going to find reliable biographical information on this person - he never existed, and unlike someone like King Arthur or Beowulf, he is not subject of any saga, epic, or other heroic tale. He was invented as a means to explain how the Ayala family came to possess their lands, and in order to tie this noble (not royal) family to royalty. All of the sources (thanks to DGG, I now see most of them can be found by Google Booksing Vela Ayala Aragon, in no particular order). These fall into two categories. Many (e.g. the surname books) just say that the Ayala family descends from Vela of Aragon. Some give the more detailed account: Vela was a son (youngest, or illegitimate) of king Sancho Ramirez of Aragon (or of his father Ramiro, or a member of the house of Navarre) who went to Burgos and was given (or his son Sancho Vela was given) lands around Ayala by king Alfonso VI. He became founder of the Ayala family/ancestor of Pedro Lopez de Ayala. Any time someone does a biography of Lopez de Ayala, they repeat this legend that the Ayalas were founded by this Vela, rehashing the same brief outline first given by Fernan Perez de Ayala (father of Lopez de Ayala) in his 14th century history of the family. This is all just passing reference and he is of no notability independent of this famous supposed descendants, never mentioned on his own. Finally, there are a few that mention him only to immediately dismiss the fantasy (e.g. the New England Historical and Genealogical Register reference).
There are hundreds of similar invented stories about invented founders for just about every family that ever cared enough to invent one. In England, every noble and gentry family in the 16th century traced their 'ancestry' to an invented companion of William the Conqueror, and none of these inventions are notable. Now, there has been some writing by Balparda and his followers that details an actual Vela who was actually ancestor of the Ayalas, but he is not the same as this legendary Vela. So, he has not received substantial coverage in reliable sources. When he has been covered, it is only as supposed founder of the Ayalas and ancestor of Pedro, flying in the face of both WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED. At best, it could never be more than a stub, but is more likely to accumulate clutter, like the WP:OR just added that would make him son of Sancho II Garces of Navarre, just added.Agricolae (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gecko Gear[edit]

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

Non-notable company, no reliable independent sources, most google hits are unrelated or are reviews of their products. Miracle Pen (talk) 05:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban family dog[edit]

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

I wasn't sure whether to CSD tag this or not, so I'm putting it up here. UtherSRG (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 8 - We've cleaned up the copy, removed quotes from people. Can veracity be authenticated by a person? Joshua Geller, who is founder of Urban Family Dog, is now a prosecutor for the city of Van Nuys. He's been helping to tidy up. Would it help our case in any way to shorten this article? Nelsdrums (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nelsdrums (talk • contribs) 15:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI. You need to provided independent verifiable and reliable sources. Your own website, iTunes, and amazon.com do not qualify as valid, nor do the other two references you've provided. You need to use hard news sources, such as national newspapers, to show that your group has notability. Otherwise, you're no more notable than the neighborhood garage band. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the conflict of interest and other veracity problems. Perhaps if we are lucky, some fans will have the old L.A. Weekly review or some music magazine review from back in 2002 that they could photograph and upload. I respectfully bow out of the discussion.Nelsdrums (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable source references to the band=complete lack of notability.- Wolfkeeper 04:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Band it not notable. Can't find any good sources. Traxs7 05:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 aren't many arguments to work with; looking at what we have, the discussion does not tend one way or the other. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridport Dagger[edit]

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

Not sure of the notability of the band. UtherSRG (talk) 06:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 06:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The band are currently releasing singles, recording material, sell out venues in London and appear in a number of London and national music publications. There are also a number of Google web, image and news links showing a decent web presence. Not a huge band perhaps, but notable enough does inclusion given their notoriety in the London music scene. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floralteacups (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - despite the duplicate footnotes, there does not seem to be a reliable source to establish notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perhaps I have a bias as author of the page, however the intention was to provide a source of information on a band that have a large following in London and the London music press. Maybe it's the case bands of this nature aren't 'notable' to those living thousands of miles away without an interest in this music scene, however is that not to be expected? There are numerous sources of the band's covered by notable publications/brands/radio stations such as BBC 6 Music, Artrocker, NME, I-D Magazine, Ben Sherman, Levi's, Sailor Jerry and the Coda booking agency (who are notable sources if you have an interest in this music), who have been covering their singles, their performances at notable venues alongside notable artists - however not all are incorporated into the page as it felt as though this would be linking for the sake of linking, the links included are only there to back up points made.Claretwiki (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The BBC6 ref is just an inclusion of this band in a tracklisting without further comment--hardly nontrivial coverage. Other refs include YouTube vids and a MySpace blog (never a good sign). Our article on Coda Agency would never survive an AfD in its current state, and I wouldn't be shocked if it qualified for a speedy delete (self-ref'd orphaned substub), making me wonder whether that source is notable. I came here wanting to keep this article, but it's looking more and more like this band just doesn't qualify. Heather (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and per Heather. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 07:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if it's not appropriate to include the sources mentioned above in the article, it would help to state exactly where the band is covered and what the article said. That might change the outcome on deletion. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Keep Would the BBC6 tracklisting qualify the band for inclusion under point 11 for musicians/groups: "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network."? The MySpace blog link is a link to a scan of the NME review that was published. The magazine only goes out nationally in print and not online, I could only find an indirect link through an external source. Claretwiki (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The band are already mentioned in another Wiki article for the band The Subliminal Girls. It references Bridport Dagger member Arran Goodchild as a member of both bands.Triangle987 (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triangle987 (talk • contribs) 12:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That carries no weight in deletion discussions. One source you most definitely can't use for notability claims is other Wikipedia articles, otherwise anyone could have their articles kept by creating several wiki articles referencing each other. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. Weak consensus for merging but no consensus for a target. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autosadism[edit]

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

No sources. Dictionary definition. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A lack of sourcing, and a lack of obvious sources for the topic, indicate a lack of notability. The term might be a useful redirect, though I'm not entirely sure what the most appropriate target would be - Sadism, I imagine, but there may be a better fit. No use racking my brains over it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google Books has 394 hits for this word, many obviously relevant; Google Scholar has 36 ditto. Clearly a notable topic. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable subject on it's own in respect to psychology per [71] and [72]. Actually it seems more like a paraphilia than a BDSM topic. --Savonneux (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliably sourced + notable.- Wolfkeeper 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. it's not a dictionary article, a dictionary article is when you have different things with the same word; here it's one thing with different words. That's allowed, and even encouraged.- Wolfkeeper 04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source says its part of masochism. Sadism is when you want to hurt somebody else. If you enjoy being hurt, even by yourself, then it's masochism.- Wolfkeeper 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more sources, and Ellis, for example, says "a form of algolagnia more masochistic than sadistic". Tustin, on the other hand, classifies it with sadism. But anyway, the point is that there are now multiple sources discussing this specific topic. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as obviously notable and supported by multiple verifiable reliable sources. The lack of consensus here about whether it should be merged into sadism, masochism or algolagnia clearly demonstrates that this is a distinct concept (albeit related to all three of the others) and thus merits its own article. -- Karada (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind it's a single paragraph, we can merge into all three without any problem at all. Having a single paragraph article when none of the sources that I've seen have more than a sentence on it seems very excessive.- Wolfkeeper 15:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And which of the three would you redirect to? You would need to leave behind a disambiguation page which looked really rather like the present article ... Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a distinct notable topic worthy of its own separate article. Although if it's to be merged I think Self-harm would be a better choice. -- œ™ 20:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sources into the seperate articles masochism, Self-harm or algolagnia, where appropriate, and then delete article to avoid duplication of the existing articles. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So that readers looking up the word Autosadism get no help whatever disentangling the various terms? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its the same phenomenon, just comes under a different name, for example self-harm is also often referred to as self-injury, self-mutilation, deliberate self-harm, auto-mutilation etc. The list of different terms that can be used is endless but we should use the term that is most common. There are some new references in this article which I think would be useful if incorporated into the other articles but it would be wrong to keep this article as it is just repeating information already provided in the articles I mentioned. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So the proper course of action in this situation would be to merge and redirect the article rather than to delete. We don't want to delete a potentially useful search term. -- Ϫ 10:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, agreed. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BDSM#Physical aspects. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Branding (BDSM)[edit]

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

No sources. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think you are mixing too things. Deletion should not be decided on the quality of the article, BUT on the interest of the subject. The article is poorly sourced, ok, too short, but this is a notable and interesting topic, from the standpoint of BDSM activities. So I think it should be kept.

PS : it seems you have started a massive deletion campaign of BDSM related articles. Don't be surprised if you read me saying keep in other articles for exactly the same reasons. Hektor (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to BDSM#Physical_aspects cant find any material strictly on the branding aspect but there is a lot of info in general titles on the subject. --Savonneux (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Hektor, this is a mass deletion campaign. The article now has no less than 8 outside sources. If you do any exploration at all, there is a lot of material available on the subject. As I discussed elsewhere, how much is enough? You aren't going to get a lot of mainstream coverage. Go into the community, where anonymity is frequently required, there is tons of material.OsamaPJ (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -no reliable sources. Keep if reliable sources are added.- Wolfkeeper 04:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper: If you consider Aggrawal a sufficient sole source for Autosadism above, then you will have to accept this based on its inclusion in the same document.OsamaPJ (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a one word mention. There's not enough references here for an article, it needs to merge or something.- Wolfkeeper 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the distinct lack of reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to BDSM#Physical_aspects. No reliable sources that do more than mention that practice exists; no discussion of the practice as such. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cari and Rob Show[edit]

The Cari and Rob Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable radio show lacking GHits and GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:NOTABILITY. ttonyb (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paste bomb[edit]

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

Poorly referenced WP:NEOLOGISM. Online dictionaries not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I had never heard the term before myself. I stumbled across the List of Missing articles and thought me, that's a good quick one to work on. I was under the impression that if it's on the hot list, some knowledgable Wikipedians already considered this article worthy of inclusion. My peace of mind won't depend on it, but IMHO it looks a bit odd to delete an article that has just been solicited... --Syzygy (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 08:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I.L.Y. (Yokubō)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and the guidelines mentioned in MUSIC. MS (Talk|Contributions) 00:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it is clearly notable: it is the debut single of a very popular Japanese singer, it charted modestly on Japan's national music chart, and it has been used as a theme song in the TV show G Paradise, as well as at least one commercial. Sorafune +1 01:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Um...why do you think that it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC? Joe Chill (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and I tried to redirect the article per this (Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.) but Sorafune disagreed and undid the redirect and said to send the article to AfD. MS (Talk|Contributions) 02:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It meets the criteria of WP:MUSIC as Sorafune pointed out (WP:N doesn't matter in this situation). Joe Chill (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Aquino Yap[edit]

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

This person has not had sufficient coverage in secondary sources to meet the basic criterion of WP:PEOPLE. Jminthorne (talk) 05:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My apologies for the relist. I was on the wrong logpage. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe created this article when is younger now. Thanks. - Gabby 15:31, 14 May 2010 (PST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_May_13&oldid=1142640552"